Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
1.46s
Colsa Corporation v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 24, 2022
Read together, plaintiff’s inquiry and the agency’s response clearly indicate that the agency understood plaintiff’s concerns, had investigated their import with the SBA, and decided not to change course. … “the opportunity to qualify either as an actual or a prospective bidder ends when the proposal period ends.”
Cited 0 timesPublishedOcto Consulting Group, Inc. v. United States
124 Fed. Cl. 462 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 17, 2015
(“Octo Consulting”), sought to qualify. As reflected in the RFQ, GSA intended to award 10 BPAs for Pool Three. AR Tab 13A at 950. … Sols., 539 F.3d at 1344 (‘To qualify as an ‘interested party,’ a protestor must establish that . . . it was an actual or prospective bidder or offeror[.]”).
Cited 2 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · May 7, 2025
Cir. 1998) (“The effect of finding privity of contract between a party and the United States is to find a waiver of sovereign immunity.”). … As Mr. van Leeuwen was “clearly not [a] signator[y] . . . [he] could not therefore be in direct privity with the sovereign.” Anderson, 344 F.3d at 1351.
Cited 0 timesPublished61 Fed. Cl. 322 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 23, 2004
As a court of limited jurisdiction, this Court may only hear claims brought against the Government to the extent that Congress has waived sovereign immunity. See, e.g., United States v. … “Appeals processes [were] so lengthy and complicated that managers [in the civil service] often avoid[ed] taking disciplinary action” against employees even when clearly warranted.
Cited 5 timesPublishedJossart v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 5, 2024
Jossart “started fainting more since gardisol immunization. Mom wonder is it was the immunization vs. Cyproheptadine.” Id. … Jossart did not qualify for POTS based upon the tilt table testing. Tr. 235, 246.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTransatlantic Lines LLC v. United States
68 Fed. Cl. 48 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 2005
Congress established the rule that at least fifty percent of the cost of labor on an SBA contract must participate in the contract to qualify. … United States, 61 Fed.Cl. 559, 577 (2004) (holding that "[a] movant that clearly establishes likelihood of success on the merits receives the benefit of a presumption of irreparable harm.”)(quoting Reebok Int’l Ltd. v.
Cited 19 timesPublished87 Fed. Cl. 230 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 26, 2009
The waiver of immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 , 89 S.Ct. 1501 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969). … To establish jurisdiction in this court, plaintiffs must establish that the $769,998 was exacted pursuant to the authority of a particular constitutional provision, statute, or regulation.
Cited 3 timesPublished106 Fed. Cl. 343 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 16, 2012
Obviously the State could not simply by enactment of a statute immunize itself from the salutary provisions of the Fifth Amendment. … Once it is established that federal action occasioned a taking of plaintiffs’ state law prop *369 erty interests, it is for the federal courts, not state legislatures, to determine what qualifies as “just compensation” due
Cited 9 timesPublishedFox v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 28, 2025
must establish that he received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited exception; suffered the residual … See Ex. 2 at 39; see e.g., Ex. 5 at 24 (“I suspect her immunization was injected into the infraspinatus tendon”).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedGoodwin v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services
27 Fed. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 30, 1992
The narrow waiver of sovereign immunity granted by the Act requires strict adherence to the plain meaning of the statutory language. … Section 300aa-11(a)(5)(A) establishes a jurisdictional requirement by forcing petitioners to dismiss prior civil actions without prejudice or costs before proceeding under the Act.
Cited 6 timesPublished96 Fed. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 1, 2010
The court will transfer a ease when a plaintiff articulates a clearly stated and non-frivolous complaint. See Phang v. … In a motion for reconsideration, under RCFC 59(a), “manifest” is understood as “clearly apparent or obvious.” Ammex, Inc. v.
Cited 43 timesPublishedShoshone Indian Tribe of Wind River Reservation, Wyoming v. United States
56 Fed. Cl. 639 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 9, 2003
In Navajo Nation , the Supreme Court clearly outlined what was needed for a Tribe to state a claim cognizable under the Indian Tucker Act: [A] Tribe must identify a substantive source of law that establishes specific fiduciary … There, the court stated: Because the statutes and regulations at issue in this case clearly establish fiduciary obligations of the Government in the management and. operation of Indian lands and resources, they can fairly
Cited 6 timesPublished74 Fed. Cl. 769 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 20, 2006
Jurisdiction The Tucker Act confers jurisdiction on the United States Court of Federal Claims over certain suits for money against the United States founded upon the Constitution or Federal law and waives sovereign immunity … Claimants are clearly not required to survive until the day payment is deposited in their bank accounts.
Cited 1 timesPublishedMDB Communications, Inc. v. United States
53 Fed. Cl. 245 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 14, 2002
. § 1491 (2000), which waives sovereign immunity for claims “against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied … The Comptroller General’s rulings do not stand for the proposition that every legislative grant of spending authority qualifies as an appropriation.
Cited 5 timesPublishedWhite Mountain Apache Tribe v. United States
46 Fed. Cl. 20 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 19, 1999
The United States Army established Fort Apache.in 1870. … See id. at 1563. 8 The 1960 Act and the additional statutes and regulations plaintiff relies upon here are clearly distinguishable from the statutory and regulatory scheme in Brown .
Cited 10 timesPublishedSavantage Financial Services, Inc. v. United States
123 Fed. Cl. 7 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 3, 2015
“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.” … In other words, there is sufficient evidence that plaintiff “was qualified to secure the awards if they had been made the subject of” a competition. Id. at 1371.
Cited 7 timesPublishedMartin v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 23, 2020
Martin knew this, as clearly admitted during her testimony at hearing and set forth below. IV. … immunizations.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDavis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 24, 2022
To “qualify as any subtype of GBS, there must not be a more likely alternative diagnosis for the weakness.” 42 C.F.R. § 100.3(c)(15)(v). … Chaudhry maintains that a definitive diagnosis of CIDP was never established.
Cited 0 timesPublished74 Fed. Cl. 106 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 4, 2006
Therefore, the regulations clearly do not provide Mr. Loeh with a regulatory entitlement to separation pay. CONCLUSION Having granted Mr. … United States, 50 Fed.Cl. 718, 727 (2001) (construing a similar provision under 10 U.S.C. § 1174 (c)(2) as giving the Secretary the discretion to establish criteria under which a reservist would not be eligible for separation
Cited 1 timesPublished104 Fed. Cl. 699 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 18, 2012
Whether an item qualifies as a partnership item is critical to its tax treatment under TEFRA. See 26 U.S.C. § 6231 (a) (2006). … When waiver legislation contains a statute of limitations, the limitations provision constitutes a condition on the waiver of sovereign immunity. Block v. North Dakota ex rel.
Cited 2 timesPublished
Ask Donna