Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
0.49s
117 Fed. Cl. 560 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 31, 2014
The Tucker Act serves as a waiver of sovereign immunity and a jurisdictional grant, but it does not create a substantive cause of action. Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. … Hatmaker could not qualify for total disability under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16, but under certain circumstances, he could qualify for such a rating under DoDI 1332.39 ¶ 6.5. The problem for Mr.
Cited 10 timesPublishedBay View, Inc. v. United States
46 Fed. Cl. 494 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 19, 2000
The ultimate burden of establishing jurisdiction rests on plaintiff. See Rocovich v. United States, 933 F.2d 991, 993 (Fed.Cir.1991). … In the absence of a provision that expressly creates liability for breach, a statute creating a trust is money-mandating only when it “clearly establishes] fiduciary obligations of the Government in the management and operation
Cited 2 timesPublished99 Fed. Cl. 254 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 7, 2011
The Tucker Act concurrently “waives the Government’s sovereign immunity for those actions.” Fisher, 402 F.3d at 1172 . … Plaintiff clearly states in his response brief that “[t]his is not a tort case.” Pl.’s Resp. ¶ 1.
Cited 4 timesPublished36 Fed. Cl. 101 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 16, 1996
Kaneko’s bank account does not qualify Mr. … However, while the plaintiff in this instance can establish involvement by the Federal Government in Mr. Kaneko’s injury, the plaintiff cannot establish that it is the type of injury that qualifies Mr.
Cited 2 timesPublished72 Fed. Cl. 111 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 2, 2006
“BJA’s implementing regulations thus qualify for Chevron deference.” Yanco v. United States, 258 F.3d at 1362 . … According to the defendant, the FTCA waiver of sovereign immunity does not extend to independent contractors and does not convert such contractors into employees, nor should Mr.
Cited 2 timesPublishedDeplush v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 9, 2017
G at 13 (“the attenuated vaccine virus replicates to induce protective immunity”). … In turn, Petitioner and his expert were clearly made aware of Respondent’s arguments, and Dr. Steinman endeavored in his two supplemental reports to answer and rebut all of them.
Cited 0 timesPublishedBrown v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services
34 Fed. Cl. 152 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 22, 1995
However, this same report further states: “Encephalopa-thies are frequently accompanied by seizures ---- Most of the studies of neurologic events following pertussis immunization have included both encephalopathy and seizure … Whether under the Vaccine Act a seizure qualifies as a sufficient reaction to constitute a first symptom or manifestation of the onset of encephalopathy is discussed above.
Cited 0 timesPublishedFemme Comp Inc. v. United States
83 Fed. Cl. 704 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 12, 2008
resources or ability to recruit and retain qualified personnel. … This clearly represents unequal treatment.
Cited 77 timesPublishedTaylor v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 16, 2020
“[T]he rapid onset of pain with limited range of motion following vaccination . . . is consistent with a robust and prolonged immune response.” Id. at 3. … They found “rapid onset of pain with limited range of motion following vaccination . . . is consistent with a robust and prolonged immune response.” Id. at 3.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 17, 2020
Cir. 2007) (“When the source of such alleged right is a statute, it can only support jurisdiction if it qualifies, as most statutes do not, as money-mandating.”). Mr. … Thus, the Federal Circuit already has held that a money-mandating provision of law clearly is not a necessary prerequisite for an illegal exaction claim.
Cited 0 timesPublishedLind v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 16, 2026
Lind clearly met the diagnostic criteria for CFS, Dr. Kinsbourne maintained. Kinsbourne Rep. at 5. To substantiate this contention, Dr. … of the innate immune response).
Cited 0 timesUnpublished85 Fed. Cl. 678 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 27, 2009
Third, “the measure of damages must be reasonably certain, although if ‘a reasonable probability of damage can be clearly established, uncertainty as to the amount will not preclude recovery’ ” (the proof of damages to a … Section 6612.72 reiterated that PE/PI funds could be used to protect a witness who did not qualify for the witness protection program.
Cited 11 timesPublishedBhl Properties, LLC v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 21, 2017
Standards The standards for granting summary judgment are well established. … But even assuming that they were identical, on August 11, 2017, the government clearly signaled that it intended to challenge Mr.
Cited 0 timesPublishedKareem R. Rock v. United States
112 Fed. Cl. 113 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 31, 2013
Rock was “not qualified for service”). On May 26, 2009 an informal PEB found Mr. Rock unfit for service as a result of partial complex seizures. AR 250 (2009 preliminary findings). The informal PEB rated Mr. … 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 in nature.”); see also Soriano
Cited 6 timesPublishedYankee Atomic Electric Co. v. United States
40 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,808 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 22, 1995
Thus, “one who wishes to obtain a contractual right against the sovereign that is immune from the effect of future changes in law must make sure that the contract confers such a right in unmistakable terms.” … Clearly, then, the assessment is an add-on to the price previously paid to the Government.
Reversed by Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569 (1997)Cited 10 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 28, 2025
The Tucker Act waives the sovereign immunity of the federal government to provide jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims for a claim founded on an express or implied contract with the United States, for a refund from … The plaintiff seeks to qualify to receive federal grants; he cannot do so due to a regulatory restriction alleged to be illegal.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedTextainer Equipment Management Limited v. United States
115 Fed. Cl. 708 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 22, 2014
However, the suppliers’ liens could not be enforced against the United States due to sovereign 16 immunity. Id. at 42. … As a result, the Court found, the application of sovereign immunity destroyed the liens at issue and caused a compensable taking of the suppliers’ liens. Id. at 48-49.
Cited 13 timesPublished131 Fed. Cl. 333 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 19, 2017
The Tucker Act serves as a waiver of sovereign immunity and a jurisdictional grant, but it does not create a substantive cause of action. Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 525 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. … Rather, the record clearly indicates that Mr. McCord had radiculopathy symptoms at least as far back as July 17, 2010, almost two years prior to his discharge. See id. Tab 23 at 424.
Cited 5 timesPublished56 Fed. Cl. 572 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 6, 2003
As such, plaintiffs allegations of bad faith are merely conclusory and are clearly contradictory to the record. … Plaintiff has not established that any of the reasons asserted by the IRS for denying additional payment are erroneous or that it acted without a reasonable basis.
Cited 4 timesPublishedBen v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 12, 2025
Further, he opines that “[e]ven if another neurologist were to disagree, and perhaps argue that the record does not clearly establish that diabetes could not have been a factor in the development of [petitioner]’s CIDP, I … Anand, is better qualified to opine in this case than petitioner’s expert, Dr. Shuper. (ECF No. 69, pp. 10, 12.) Moreover, he contends that petitioner’s other expert, Dr. Ruben, is not qualified to opine at all.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna