Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
1.59s
92 Fed. Cl. 327 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 28, 2010
The Tucker Act concurrently “waives the Government’s sovereign immunity for those actions.” Fisher, 402 F.3d at 1172 . … If the provision relied upon is found to be money-mandating, the plaintiff need not rely upon a waiver of sovereign immunity beyond the Tucker Act. Huston v.
Cited 16 timesPublished105 Fed. Cl. 74 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 11, 2012
The moving party bears the burden of establishing the absence of any material fact, and any doubt over factual disputes will be resolved in favor of the non-moving party. Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. … Clearly, each airplane when acquired was not “a combination of depreciable and nondepre-ciable property.”
Cited 1 timesPublished94 Fed. Cl. 259 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 19, 2010
Hwang Clearly And Repetitively Requested Reinstatement to Active Duty to The ABCMR And to This Court. The Government suggests that because Mr. … Hwang properly was diagnosed with delusional disorder by a “qualified psychiatrist.”
Cited 13 timesPublishedGerald K. Kandel v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 22, 2022
that the additional forty dollars reflected in plaintiffs’ accounting is a scrivener’s error, and it does not affect the court’s ruling on the present motion. 2 “[t]o qualify … And while the decision is not binding precedent, the Circuit has clearly “indicated its view” on the relevant law therein. RhinoCorps Co. v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 261, 279 (2009); see also Lerwick v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 22, 2021
Following the “interested party” definition from AFGE, the Federal Circuit later established a two-prong test to establish standing under § 1491(b): the plaintiff must “establish that it (1) is an actual or prospective bidder … The district court’s jurisdiction derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the waiver of sovereign immunity in the APA. Id.; see also Validata Chem. Servs. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 169 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2016) (Moss, J.)
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 13, 2020
Cl. 1958) (" It is well established that . .. a controversy between private parties could not be entertained [in this court]."); Anderson v. United States, 117 Fed. … Fanelli's claims are clearly beyond the subject-matter jurisdiction of this court.
Cited 0 timesPublishedLamona Dodd, Parent of S.S., a Minor v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 21, 2013
She asked to file a supplemental expert report to describe petitioner’s theory more clearly. Petitioner’s Status Report, Oct. 22, 2010, at 2. The undersigned granted petitioner’s request. … Kinsbourne further asserted that when a seizure occurs within a medically reasonable time frame after an MMR immunization, it need not be accompanied by fever to establish vaccine-related causation.
Cited 0 timesPublished58 Fed. Cl. 688 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 9, 2003
The parties were asked to consider these issues while remaining mindful of the government’s sovereign immunity and remembering that statutory provisions waiving sovereign immunity are strictly construed. … Krupp clearly construed it as following the Harlan theory.” Leesona, 599 F.2d at 966 . .
Cited 8 timesPublished62 Fed. Cl. 244 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 1, 2004
Clearly, the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii took plaintiffs original filing date in state court as the applicable filing date for its consideration of the statute of limitations issue. … Defendant was unable, however, to establish either that the regulations conclusively excluded plaintiff from bidding, or that plaintiff should have been aware of any possible exclusion.
Cited 61 timesPublished35 Fed. Cl. 633 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 6, 1996
I could have taken courses that would have qualified for the hours. THE COURT: Right. MR. WILLINGHAM: I chose not to do that. I am not challenging directly what the Board did. … The individual claimants, therefore, must look beyond the jurisdictional statute for a waiver of sovereign immunity. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. at 398 , 96 S.Ct. at 953 .
Cited 4 timesPublishedO. Ahlborg & Sons, Inc. v. United States
74 Fed. Cl. 178 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 31, 2006
Absent privity between Plaintiff and the United States, there has been no waiver of sovereign immunity for a suit in contract. Central Transport, 63 Fed.Cl. at 338 . … A party *189 must be an intended beneficiary of an agreement to qualify as a third-party beneficiary.
Cited 12 timesPublishedDarton Innovative Technologies, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 19, 2021
The SBA establishes “size standards” that represent the largest size that a concern can be and still qualify as a small business for purposes of federal-government programs. See 13 C.F.R. § 121.101. … The Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity “covers a broad range of potential disputes arising during the course of the procurement process.” Sys. Application & Techs., Inc. v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedAmerican Management Systems, Inc. v. United States
53 Fed. Cl. 525 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 30, 2002
The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Federal Claims is founded on the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (2000), which waives sovereign immunity for claims “against the United States founded either upon the Constitution … According to defendant, § 8437(c) “clearly does not suggest, much less state, that the [Thrift] Board has the use of public funds from the public fisc.” This too is an argument we cannot accept.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMantech Telecommunications & Information Systems Corp. v. United States
49 Fed. Cl. 57 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 15, 2001
ManTech’s cost proposal utilized [ ] to provide qualified professionals at [ ] rates that it viewed as including realistic labor rates and fringe benefits. … This document, thus, clearly envisions that the failure to provide a qualifying resume would effect the adjectival rating received in the evaluation, but not preclude a technical proposal from being evaluated at all.
Cited 148 timesPublishedAsia Pacific Airlines v. United States
68 Fed. Cl. 8 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 5, 2005
To establish standing, a protester must establish that it is an “interested party” and that it has been prejudiced. See Park Tower Mgmt., Ltd. v. … Section 4.2.2.a of the Manual requires that “[p]urchase teams must ensure that the solicitation clearly states the needs of the Postal Service and clearly communicates how proposals will be evaluated.”
Cited 35 timesPublishedDarton Innovative Technologies, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 19, 2021
The SBA establishes “size standards” that represent the largest size that a concern can be and still qualify as a small business for purposes of federal-government programs. See 13 C.F.R. § 121.101. … The Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity “covers a broad range of potential disputes arising during the course of the procurement process.” Sys. Application & Techs., Inc. v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedBraun v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 18, 2019
In June, H.B.’s doctors discussed diagnoses for a movement disorder, post-acute immune syndrome, and active Lyme disease. See id. … can not prove causation without also establishing a reasonable basis for the claim.
Cited 0 timesPublished34 Fed. Cl. 75 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 25, 1995
The statute of limitations for cases in this court is generally six years, 28 U.S.C. § 2501 , and “is jurisdictional in nature and, as an express limitation on the waiver of sovereign immunity, may not be waived.” … Consequently, a district court would clearly not possess jurisdiction over these claims and the transfer of them would therefore be inappropriate.
Cited 39 timesPublished129 Fed. Cl. 322 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 22, 2016
Code). 2 and thereby qualified for the Mixture Credit. Compl. ¶ 11. … Sunoco cites the well-established construction canon of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, or “the expression of the one is the exclusion of the other,” to support its case.
Cited 8 timesPublishedLane v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 30, 2024
Neunert is qualified to call into question the results of an epidemiologic study. The Secretary’s second challenge to Garbe appears to be the presentation of a different epidemiologic study. … Due to contradictory results, it probably cannot be said that the proposition that the flu vaccine can cause thrombocytopenia has been established 7 Garbe et al., Drug-induced immune thrombocytopaenia: results
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna