Case law

Forestry Surveys & Data v. United States

44 Fed. Cl. 485 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 14, 1999

In this court, the Tucker Act waives the United States’ immunity from suit with respect to the claims identified by the act. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 , 103 S.Ct. 2961 , 77 L.Ed.2d 580 (1983). … First, as to the requested injunction barring use in this contract of a performance evaluation of a prior contract, the issue is clearly moot.

Driessen v. United States

116 Fed. Cl. 33 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 25, 2014

The petition for rulemaking requested that the Copyright Office "clearly establish that consumers have ownership rights in first-sales of online digital media," and, "if it is determined that ownership rights for cloud media … Section 1498(b) "codifies a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for copyright infringement claims against the government and establishes this court as the exclusive forum to hear such claims." Blueport Co.. LLP. v.

Klamath Irrigation District v. United States

64 Fed. Cl. 328 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 28, 2005

Several decisions of the Supreme Court shed light on what is a qualifying “interest.” In Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. … District of Columbia, 417 F.2d 728, 738 (D.C.Cir.1969), is as applicable here as in any Federal court, all of which, of course, are of “limited” jurisdiction. 8 Moreover, no separate waiver of sovereign immunity is required

Evans v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 10, 2019

When an ultrasound is performed and interpreted by a qualified and knowledgeable physician, it is nearly 100 percent definitive. Id. at 122. According to Dr. … This type of food allergy is caused by an immune reaction not involving IgE antibodies. Id. at 140-41.

State of Mississippi v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 22, 2022

Good cause requires a specific demonstration that “disclosure will cause a clearly defined and serious injury.” Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995); see also Forest Prods. Nw., Inc. v. … If Plaintiffs cannot in good faith admit a request, they may deny it or qualify their answer. See id. (permitting parties to qualify or admit in part answers if good faith requires doing so).

Red Hawk Construction, Inc. v. United States

108 Fed. Cl. 779 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 13, 2013

Such a waiver of sovereign immunity must be “unequivocally expressed.” United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 (1969). … The undisputed facts clearly establish that ServisFirst, not Red Hawk, is the sole assignee of the right to payment under the contract.

Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. United States

49 Fed. Cl. 313 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 30, 2001

In the present case, the federal government enjoys no such contractual immunity from liability. … (A permit establishes a conditional priority of usage; a license, in contrast, is a confirmed appropria-tive right.)

Ancman v. United States

77 Fed. Cl. 368 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 13, 2007

Nonetheless, the estimates were clearly identified as such and provided the address of the proper source to obtain official estimates. … 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).

Albemarle Corporation & Subsidiaries v. United States

118 Fed. Cl. 549 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 20, 2014

Likewise, plaintiff indicates that “[i]n the instant case, there is no dispute that the Belgian tax at issue qualifies as a creditable tax under section 901.” … Defendant submits that such a result is so bizarre that Congress clearly could not have intended it.”

C.D. Hayes, Inc. v. United States

74 Fed. Cl. 699 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2006

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). … Thus, under the Tucker Act, the United States waives sovereign immunity and consents to be sued over contract disputes.

Litman v. United States

81 Fed. Cl. 315 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 20, 2008

Nonetheless, Hotels.com asserts that it qualifies for exculpation under I.R.C. § 6664(c)(1) because it acted with reasonable cause and good faith in computing its 2000 taxes. … Thus, the court concludes that Hotelsxom qualifies for the defense allowed by I.R.C. § 6664(c)(1). 4.

Coleman v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 3, 2014

Coleman's lack of income and absence of savings could qualify him for in forma pauperis status, his complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in this court. … Moreover, on the merits, Mr. coleman's complaint is insufficient to establish a cause of action in this court. lt is well established that "'subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court's power to hear a case

AG Route Seven Partnership v. United States

57 Fed. Cl. 521 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 29, 2003

Clearly, the government’s solicitation of Old Surety to potential acquirers can be *529 characterized as a request for offers. … In its capacity as regulator, the government had every right to assess the capital position of a prospective acquiring thrift in order for said thrift to minimally qualify as a viable acquirer.

L-3 Communications Integrated Systems L.P. v. United States

132 Fed. Cl. 325 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 31, 2017

Part of that qualifying proposal included a “Cost Volume/Proposal for C- 27J RAAF Training.” Id. at 3. … In its brief, L-3 does not clearly identify which of its written communications with the Air Force it relies upon to meet the “claim” requirement.

Akal Security, Inc. v. United States

103 Fed. Cl. 310 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 29, 2011

Walden also points out that “the [CO] clearly examined the merits of each offerors’ proposals, as judged against the RFP evaluation criteria.” Int. Mot. at 36. … Indeed, the record clearly shows that Akal was credited for similar strengths in these areas.

Acetris Health, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 8, 2018

“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.” … Cl. 595, 598 (2014) (“[F]acts are operative if they are relevant to establishing a claim.

Moore v. United States

48 Fed. Cl. 394 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 21, 2000

In this regard, the article posits that the fact that an agreement does not qualify as a "procurement contract” under that statute does not necessarily mean that it also does not qualify as "contract” within the broader language … In these circumstances, equitable estoppel clearly does not apply.

Veryzer v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

98 Fed. Cl. 214 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 17, 2011

Moulden contends that “[Louis] Pasteur’s germ theory of mammalian disease is both incorrect and inaccurate in that “disease is NOT being caused by ANY particular pathogen or strain of pathogen ... it is the non-specific immune … Second, the [Vaccine] Act gives explicit authority, in subsection (c), to “establish” the record, and the record thus established is the record that subsection (b) ... instructs the Court to consider. Id. at *19.

Langley v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 28, 2022

Williams also opined that multiple concurrent vaccines clearly contributed to the onset of his disability. Id. at 15. On January 13, 2015, Mr. … Langley must establish that the vaccine caused his encephalopathy.

Introini v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 14, 2022

She argued that a case-series, risk-interval, or case-centered analysis would be more useful here, where the adverse event (TM) is “abrupt in onset, clearly defined, occur[s] relatively soon after vaccination, ha[s] a limited … Standards for Adjudication The Vaccine Act was established to compensate vaccine-related injuries and deaths. § 10(a).