Case law

Doe v. United States

United 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 .

Greene v. United States

65 Fed. Cl. 375 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 29, 2005

Greene’s claims is clearly beyond the jurisdiction of this Court — his request for punitive damages in the amount of ten million dollars. It is well-established that this Court lacks authority to grant punitive damages. … This claim clearly survives the Government’s Motion to Dismiss. Favorably construing Mr.

Pds Consultants, Inc. v. United States

132 Fed. Cl. 117 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 30, 2017

It establishes a first priority for small businesses owned and controlled by veterans with service-connected disabilities. … IFB’s financial investments and the human capital investments IFB’s blind workers in reliance on the continuation of these contracts is clearly demonstrated . . . IFB’s MJAR 35-36.

Anderson v. United States

85 Fed. Cl. 532 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 28, 2009

The Tucker Act provides the waiver of sovereign immunity necessary to sue the United States for money damages, but the plaintiff must establish an independent substantive right to money damages from the United States, that … The logic of plaintiffs argument is simply inconsistent with the limited waiver of sovereign immunity provided by the Tucker Act. See, e.g., Orff v.

Brestle v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 22, 2018

immunity as to the types of claims allowed. … A definite offer and an unconditional acceptance must be established .").

Donahue v. United States

33 Fed. Cl. 600 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 29, 1995

Therefore, this correspondence does not qualify as an adequate informal claim. A. … At a minimum, however, the circumstances must clearly put the IRS on notice that the taxpayer is claiming a refund contingent upon future events. Id. Herein, the July 18, 1988, letter provided no such notice. .

Ingham Regional Medical Center v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 14, 2020

TRICARE has now shown through its own analysis that the expenses qualified as facility charges and were both incurred and billed by the Hospitals. … immunity provided by this subdivision.” 48 F.R.D. 487, 501

Somosot v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

120 Fed. Cl. 716 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 7, 2015

As summarized in the conclusion section of the special master’s opinion, “there was no reasonable basis to bring this petition, based on the clearly established law that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date … The concluding sentence of Cloer III is unambiguous: We hold that [a Vaccine Act] petition found to be untimely may qualify for an award of attorney’s fees if it is filed in good faith

Lynxnet, LLC v. United States

119 Fed. Cl. 226 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 18, 2014

Mot. at 7 (citing AR Tab 4c, at 1179). 12 The Government and STOPSO also refute Plaintiff’s characterization of REDACTED February 5, 2014 letter, arguing that the contingency “clearly related to a condition precedent … 2 n.1; Int. 9/15/14 Reply at 15 (“The reason the FBI did not raise what [Plaintiff] terms ‘the 1099 issue’ in discussions is quite simple, though: STOPSO’s proposal did not actually propose or price a 1099, but rather, clearly

Scholl v. United States

54 Fed. Cl. 640 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 4, 2002

Known as the Tucker Act, this provision merely provides a waiver of sovereign immunity, and does not, standing alone, create any substantive right of recovery for money damages. … Finally, the burden of establishing jurisdiction falls upon the party asserting jurisdiction. See Rohmann v. United States, 25 Cl.Ct. 274, 277 (1992).

Preferred National Insurance v. United States

54 Fed. Cl. 600 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 2, 2002

However, certain indicia of duress are well established. … Brown was qualified to act as plaintiffs agent. Mr. Brown was plaintiffs agent when the July and October bonds were issued.

Hernandez v. United States

96 Fed. Cl. 195 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 15, 2010

Hernandez qualifies for in forma pauperis status. Subsequently, on October 28, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. … “While a pro se plaintiff is held to a less stringent standard than that of a plaintiff represented by an attorney, the pro se plaintiff, nevertheless, bears the burden of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction by a preponderance

Knowledge Connections, Inc. v. United States

79 Fed. Cl. 750 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 12, 2007

AR 182-84 (Solicitation §§ C.11.1, 2). 10 Thus, up to 576 qualifying experiences could be submitted. … Such offer-ors may not be “the most highly qualified” offerors in a specialized class of work-scope elements, as seemingly contemplated by OMB, but rather might be simply “qualified” across a broad spectrum of information

Riser v. United States

97 Fed. Cl. 679 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 25, 2011

Jurisdiction “Jurisdiction must be established as a threshold matter before the court may proceed with the merits of this or any other action.” OTI Am., Inc. v. … Riser “are given some leniency in presenting their case, [but] their pro se status does not immunize them from pleading facts upon which a valid claim can rest.” Hutchens v. United States, 89 Fed.Cl. 553, 560 (2009).

Christy, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 29, 2019

“The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). The waiver of immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” … A patent owner’s rights are qualified and specifically “[s]ubject to the provisions of [title thirty-five of the United States Code].” Id.; accord Oil States, 138 S.

Standard Space Platforms Corp. v. United States

35 Fed. Cl. 505 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 21, 1996

All documents marked as confidential would be limited to those same persons qualified to perform the initial review, i.e., outside counsel and staff and independent experts. … Thus, a party moving for a protective order bears the burden of establishing “good cause” in support of said motion.

John v. United States

77 Fed. Cl. 788 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 2, 2007

United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1316 (Fed.Cir.2003) (en banc) (“It is well established that statutes of limitations for causes of action against the United States, being conditions on the waiver of sovereign immunity, are jurisdictional … Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 , 111 S.Ct. 453 , 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990), established the current law involving the doctrine of equitable tolling against the Government: A waiver of sovereign immunity “ ‘cannot

Russell 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

Informatics Corp. v. United States

42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,311 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 18, 1998

Habib informed plaintiff that “[t]he successful SETA contractor must be eligible/qualified to perform on all orders. … Defendant does not dispute that, absent the OCI, plaintiff was a qualified offeror. Nor can defendant dispute that Ms.

Biltmore Forest Broadcasting FM, Inc. v. United States

80 Fed. Cl. 322 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 25, 2008

(“Liberty”), was not a qualified bidder under the published terms of the auction. … The awardee would then undergo qualification-rigor and if the tentative selec-tee did not qualify, examination would proceed to the next named alternate, and so on until a qualified applicant was found.