Case law

Shirlington Limousine & Transportation, Inc. v. United States

77 Fed. Cl. 157 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 27, 2007

As a threshold matter, a protester must establish that it is an “interested party.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (b)(1). … The United States Small Business Association ("SBA”) is responsible for certifying qualified HUBZone small business concerns. Id. § 19.1303(a).

J & E Salvage Co. v. United States

41 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,079 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 7, 1997

The non-moving party, however, bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Éxch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed.Cir.1988). … Plaintiffs seek to establish jurisdiction under 41 U.S.C. § 609 (a)(1).

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

Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufii v. United States

52 Fed. Cl. 421 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 3, 2002

The Federal Circuit instructs that a responsibility determination by a contracting officer is not immune from judicial review simply because allegations of fraud or bad faith are absent. Impresa, 238 F.3d at 1333 . … “In the absence of information clearly indicating that the prospective contractor is responsible, the contracting officer shall make a determination of nonresponsibility.” 48 C.F.R. § 9.103 (b) (1998).

Brown v. United States

42 Fed. Cl. 538 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 8, 1998

These allegations sufficiently establish a lease violation. … The government asserts that, because of the Tribe’s sovereign immunity, it cannot feasibly be joined. The court need not reach a determination of whether the Tribe can properly invoke sovereign immunity.

Lan-Dale Co. v. United States

60 Fed. Cl. 299 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 13, 2004

an even greater advantage that it has already by virtue of the protections of sovereign immunity. … Thus, defendant argues,”it is unlikely that Lan-Dale can establish a colorable claim in district court.” D’s Brief on § 1631, at 3-4.

Dow Chemical Co. v. United States

41 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,002 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 20, 1996

A single agreement is not sufficient to find an established royalty rate. See Trell v. … Because the royalty rate offers were made after the infringement had begun and because Pennsylvania was protected by sovereign immunity, the settlement terms cannot be considered evidence of an established royalty negotiated

Freeman v. United States

98 Fed. Cl. 360 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 21, 2011

Because this statute of limitations circumscribes the scope of the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity, it is “jurisdictional” in nature and must be construed strictly. See John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. … Thus, those periods of service do not qualify as "military service” under 50 U.S.C. app. § 511(2).

Moore v. United States

61 Fed. Cl. 146 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 29, 2004

In light of this history, the Supreme Court concluded that for collateral review for back pay to survive the finality requirement the claims must clearly rise to a constitutional level. Id. … He claims trial defense counsel failed to raise the issue of the suggestibility of his children through either 1) qualifying himself as an expert, or 2) obtaining this type of testimony from another expert. 5 Counsel’s use

Suess v. United States

52 Fed. Cl. 221 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 1, 2002

“If a reasonable probability of damage can be clearly established, uncertainty as to the amount will not preclude recovery.” California Fed. Bank v. United States, 245 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2001)(quoting Locke v. … Assuming foreseeability and causation, if a reasonable probability of damage can clearly be established, then the court is duty-bound to fashion an award that represents a “fair and reasonable approximation.” of the damages

Folden v. United States

56 Fed. Cl. 43 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 28, 2003

Individual claimants, therefore, must look beyond the jurisdictional statute for a waiver of sovereign immunity. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. at 538 , 100 S.Ct. 1349 . … This qualifying language of section 22.959 does not manifest a clear intent to be bound to selection by lottery, because it indicates that the FCC, at its discretion, could decide not to follow the dictates of section 22.33

Protection Strategies, Inc. v. United States

76 Fed. Cl. 225 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 19, 2007

The NNSA established a Competitive Range for the solicitation in September 2006. … The NNSA clearly relied on PAI Corporation’s representations concerning Mr. Weatherby and Mr. McKnight’s assumption of these two positions.

Black v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services

33 Fed. Cl. 546 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 30, 1995

Moreover, this Court does not observe any “clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary.” … For this reason, it may be more difficult for a petitioner who is a Sioux Indian to reach the $1000 threshold in order to qualify for the Program.

Nesselrode v. United States

127 Fed. Cl. 421 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 13, 2016

S 3102 Section 3102 oftitle 44 is captioned "Establishment ofprogram management."ro 44 U.S.C. $ 3102 (2012). … Clearly, the chapter is not money-mandating. 2.

Neuren v. United States

41 Fed. Cl. 422 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 22, 1998

There is clearly no question that 10 U.S.C. §§ 1201-21 creates a right to recover money. However, plaintiffs claim is not within the scope of recovery that can be obtained under this section. … He cannot now rely upon them to establish jurisdiction for this court to entertain his claim.

Competitive Innovations, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 28, 2025

The RFQ was an “ordering activity” because it sought to establish BPAs against MAS contracts under FAR Subpart 8.4. Tab 20.1 at AR 828–29, 867. … The parties are ORDERED to file a Joint Status Report by August 13, 2025 including any proposed redactions and must explain why the proposed redacted information qualifies as protected information under the Protective Order

Y. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 2, 2020

Indeed, it is Respondent’s view that Petitioners have not clearly delineated what A.Y.’s injury actually is. Id. at 6–7. … Varicella is especially dangerous to children and the immune-compromised.

Ideogenics LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 26, 2018

The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing standing. See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. … The United States Supreme Court has described the “clearly erroneous” standard as significantly deferential.

Rodriguez ex rel. Estate of Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

91 Fed. Cl. 453 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 22, 2010

And, an abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision is based on clearly erroneous findings of fact, is based on erroneous interpretations of the law, or is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary or fanciful.” … Thus, her hourly rate determination was not “based on clearly erroneous findings of fact,” was not “based on erroneous interpretations of the law,” and was not “clearly unreasonable, arbitrary or fanciful.”

Holmes v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 25, 2019

While our court, as one “established by Act of Congress,” may issue writs of mandamus under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), see Cox v. West, 149 F.3d 1360, 1363 (Fed. … Holmes and any further evidence that he may submit during the remand in accordance with any procedures the board may establish for that purpose.