Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
0.88s
Martin v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 19, 2024
Lally is an esteemed vasculitis expert who clearly explained Petitioner’s diagnosis and presentation. She is not, however, an immunologist. Dr. … While it is true that autoimmune diseases and molecular mimicry both result from immune system dysfunction, that per se does not establish the two are connected in every instance.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 12, 2021
Plaintiff further argues the government waived sovereign immunity in this case because “the Federal Circuit [] completely up-ended [and expanded] the careful waiver of sovereign immunity that Zoltek and Decca were based on … ” by holding “all agencies entering into any contracts immunize all conduct of government contractors without any reference to authorization or consent.”
Cited 0 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 timesPublished85 Fed. Cl. 248 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 12, 2009
The IRC establishes a “scheme [that] provides that a claim for a refund must be filed with the [IRS] before suit can be brought, and establishes strict timeframes for filing such a claim.” … Section 7422(a), which waives the federal government’s sovereign immunity from tax refund suits, Chi. Milwaukee Corp. v.
Cited 31 timesPublishedMarathon Targets, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 24, 2025
Finally, Plaintiff fails to establish that the public interest favors a preliminary injunction. … As Defendant’s evidence clearly establishes, that assertion cannot be true. See App. 262–63, 267–68.
Cited 0 timesPublished31 Fed. Cl. 598 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 27, 1994
Congress delegated broad authority to the Commissioner of the IRS to establish rules for filing consolidated returns. Code § 1502. … See, e.g., Treas.Reg. § 1.1502-21 (establishing method for computing consolidated net operating loss deduction).
Cited 12 timesPublished74 Fed. Cl. 554 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 22, 2006
Nonetheless, Congress’s power to act under the Commerce Clause does not immunize the federal government from a takings claim under the Fifth Amendment. … As producers, plaintiffs might qualify for the narrow exception to the general rule that handlers must exhaust their administrative remedies under the Agricultural Marketing Act. See Stark v.
Cited 8 timesPublishedRichard P. Watson v. United States
113 Fed. Cl. 615 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 21, 2013
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.”). … Boessenecker was “clearly . . . perplexed by Mr. Watson’s condition”), plaintiff has established by clearly convincing evidence that Dr. Boessenecker, Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Hess diagnosed Mr.
Cited 12 timesPublished116 Fed. Cl. 444 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 30, 2014
The Government argues that the court must take into account that “the EAJA is a partial waiver of sovereign immunity that ‘must be strictly construed in favor of the United States.’” Gov’t Resp. 4 (quoting Ardestani v. … Reply 18 (noting that “any ruling in [Plaintiff’s] favor could clearly impact others similarly situated”).
Cited 6 timesPublished34 Fed. Cl. 246 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 28, 1995
Sumakeris, qualifies for benefits under the Survivor Benefit Plan, established in 10 U.S.C. § 1447 et seq. … Sumakeris can qualify for benefits under the Survivor Benefit Plan.
Cited 7 timesPublished124 Fed. Cl. 209 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 24, 2015
Taxpayers’ qualified investment for computing investment tax credit is the amount at risk set forth in paragraph #4. 6. … In the year at issue, the investment credit was equal to 10% of the qualified investment.13 Thus, plaintiffs assert that they were entitled to a credit of $10,000, which is 10% of their $100,000 qualified investment and amount
Cited 7 timesPublished84 Fed. Cl. 745 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 18, 2008
wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort … Whether male screeners are paid more than female screeners is clearly a material fact, although from the record it is unclear whether the parties disagree.
Cited 5 timesPublishedDupuch-Carron v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 28, 2019
In 2016, Congress expressly amended the Vaccine Act to recognize this principle: (11) Petitions for Compensation… (f) Maternal immunization. … Respondent contends that the recent maternal immunization amendment to the Vaccine Act establishes that a child in utero can “receive” a vaccine but it does not establish that the child in utero was “present” in the United
Cited 0 timesPublishedBlock v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 2, 2021
of the timing in her case was likely to be dispositive, directed to my prior rulings on this point, and given several opportunities to provide evidence to support a different result (such as unique circumstances, a more qualified … Therefore, she cannot establish causation-in-fact, and her off-Table claim must be dismissed.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished87 Fed. Cl. 300 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 5, 2009
While the Tucker Act provides the waiver of sovereign immunity necessary to maintain a lawsuit against the United States, the plaintiff must also establish an independent substantive right to recover money damages from the … Clearly, as noted above, the Court of Federal Claims would not have jurisdiction over such a claim.
Cited 26 timesPublished127 Fed. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 4, 2016
Rail Road r[an],” a qualification clearly indicating that the right-of-way was intended for rail use alone. Def.’s Ex. Y at 7. … Defendant’s arguments are contrary to established binding precedent.
Cited 21 timesPublished94 Fed. Cl. 277 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 26, 2010
On June 5, 1996, the BLM conducted a field examination of Parcel B to determine whether plaintiff had made qualifying use of the land. … use, including “notarized witness statements which clearly support your use and occupancy of the land, stating the date you started using the land and the type of use ... and any additional information that might support
Cited 8 timesPublished46 Fed. Cl. 834 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 19, 2000
The six-year time bar on actions against the United States is “a jurisdictional requirement attached by Congress as a condition on the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity.” Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. … Clearly, all events which gave plaintiff a cause of action for educational benefits due but not paid had transpired by August 17, 1974. Id.
Cited 3 timesPublished86 Fed. Cl. 82 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 24, 2009
United States, again asserting plaintiffs had not established subject matter jurisdiction. Sr. … There are two steps to evaluate adequacy of representation; first, the court must consider whether the proposed class counsel is “qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the litigation.”
Reversed on other grounds by Bright v. United States, 603 F.3d 1273 (2010)Cited 19 timesPublishedUnited Enterprise & Associates v. United States
70 Fed. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 21, 2006
Tech, he clearly cannot and he has no other company in mind to assist him other than G.S. Tech. AR at 464. E. … Instead, defendant merely argues that it “clearly would be prejudiced if UEA is granted relief in this ease.”
Cited 35 timesPublished
Ask Donna