Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
1.46s
81 Fed. Cl. 766 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 15, 2008
The Tucker Act “constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity with regard to claims over which the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction,” but “the Tucker Act alone ‘does not create any substantive right enforceable against … In In re United States, the Federal Circuit held that a statute “clearly is a money-mandating statute, ...
Cited 25 timesPublishedInternational Business Machines Corp. v. United States
38 Fed. Cl. 661 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 8, 1997
Gleeson]: Clearly more certain. Q [By Mr. … Plaintiff has not established that, given the operation of IRPEG, ILOR as applied to resident and nonresident corporations with permanent establishments qualifies as an income tax otherwise generally imposed.
Cited 7 timesPublished67 Fed. Cl. 202 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 10, 2005
Yeutter, 939 F.2d 1547, 1552 (Fed.Cir.1991) (“waivers of sovereign immunity are to be strictly construed”). III. … Gary clearly was aware of these events when he and his attorney “laid out his financial condition” in a meeting with Special Agent Alan Lane on November 7, 1996. Pls.’ App. at 125-26.
Cited 10 timesPublishedNortheast Savings v. United States
63 Fed. Cl. 507 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 25, 2005
Such consideration was clearly exchanged here. Both Freedom Federal and First Federal were experiencing severe financial difficulty. … Consideration was, therefore, clearly bargained for and exchanged.
Cited 5 timesPublishedDunn v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 16, 2020
The virus resides in the neurons of the ganglion cells, and for reasons that are not clearly understood, the virus becomes activated. Id. … Petitioner cannot establish entitlement to compensation based solely on assertions.
Cited 0 timesPublishedR.K. v. the Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 23, 2016
Respondent’s position in this case is not “clearly inconsistent” with her position in Poling. … Shafrir’s general umbrage at the idea that any “official” immunization record could even be thought to exist. Doctor Shafrir was obviously disdainful of Dr.
Cited 0 timesPublished123 Fed. Cl. 481 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 19, 2015
Defendant further argues that the attorney work product immunity applies to some documents that were prepared in anticipation of litigation. Id. II. … Their work is clearly protected by the work product doctrine, a protection afforded since at least the decision in Hickman v. Taylor, which is now incorporated into Rule 26.
Cited 1 timesPublished57 Fed. Cl. 193 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 30, 2003
The railroad and the qualified trail group entered into a Trail Use Agreement approximately five months after the ICC issued the NITU. … However, plaintiffs’ argument cannot overcome the established case law discussed above.
Cited 33 timesPublishedScience Applications International Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 7, 2025
too late in time to qualify as actual prior art.” … Expert testimony is often presented to establish obviousness. See, e.g., Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1240 n.5 (Fed.
Cited 0 timesPublishedKnowledge Connections, Inc. v. United States
76 Fed. Cl. 612 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 30, 2007
Conceptually, by way of the VETS GWAC, GSA endeavored to select a pool of pre-qualified, service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses that then would compete for information technology “task orders” from individual agencies … Requirements for an Award of Attorney’s Fees under EAJA “The EAJA is a waiver of sovereign immunity which must be strictly construed.” Levernier Constr., Inc. v.
Cited 6 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 26, 2015
Defendant further argues that the attorney work product immunity applies to some documents that were prepared in anticipation of litigation. Id. II. … Their work is clearly protected by the work product doctrine, a protection afforded since at least the decision in Hickman v. Taylor, which is now incorporated into Rule 26.
Cited 0 timesPublishedNew York and Presbyterian Hospital v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 17, 2021
The phrase “such payment” clearly refers to payment of the FICA tax over to the Government. … I.R.C. §§ 6611(a) (“Interest shall be allowed and paid upon any overpayment in respect of any internal revenue tax at the overpayment rate established under section 6621.”); 6621(a)(1) (establishing the method for determining
Cited 0 timesPublished66 Fed. Cl. 115 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 23, 2005
The Navy’s policy enumerated several categories which apparently had been the subject of previous requests for religious accommodations: religious observance, dietary observance, immunizations, and uniforms. … It is equally established that the Navy is entitled to deference in the execution of its affairs.
Cited 4 timesPublished37 Fed. Cl. 191 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 15, 1997
In essence, her claim is that the DEA failed to follow procedures established by the applicable statute and regulations. … The Court of Federal Claims does not have general federal question jurisdiction, however, and it is well established that the APA is not an independent basis for this or any other court to exercise jurisdiction over claims
Cited 34 timesPublishedBarclay v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 18, 2015
It was not caused []or exacerbated by any of the immunizations that he received.” Id. at 11. Dr. Wiznitzer reached the same conclusion. … Thus, individuals with such mutations seem to develop SMEI or SMEB whether or not they are immunized in the first year of life.
Cited 0 timesPublishedResource Investments, Inc. and Land Recovery, Inc. v. United States
114 Fed. Cl. 639 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 5, 2014
The court found that the operative facts in the district court case were “merely the conditions set forth in the statute” that had to be met to qualify for a land swap. Id. … In conclusion, plaintiffs’ cited authorities are clearly distinguishable from the case before the court.
Cited 9 timesPublishedTaylor v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 8, 2025
Taylor has not established that a reasonable basis supported her claim. … establish a logical sequence of cause and effect.
Cited 0 timesPublishedRussell v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 2014
While a qualified expert may have been able to explain that such a connection is plausible, no such testimony is included in the record. b. … The child’s responsiveness to immune therapy, and her relative unresponsiveness to first line epileptic medications, suggest that her condition is related to a malfunction of the immune system by which an element of the immune
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMolina Healthcare of California, Inc. v. United States
133 Fed. Cl. 14 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 4, 2017
--The Secretary shall establish and administer a program of risk corridor for calendar years 2014, 2015, and 2016 under which a qualified health plan offered in the individual or … First, the plain language of Section 1342 stating that “HHS will pay” qualified insurers is clearly money-mandating. Land of Lincoln, 129 Fed. Cl. at 97; Health Republic, 129 Fed. Cl. at 770; Moda Health Plan, 130 Fed.
Cited 5 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 30, 2021
The plaintiff also must establish “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. … Accordingly, the Government clearly indicated that there was no guarantee that a final determination would be made by .
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna