Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
0.74s
127 Fed. Cl. 352 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 30, 2016
a The record does not clearly indicate where Plaintiffwas during the period ofunauthorized leave between May 3 1, 1970 and September 24, I 970. 5 The United States Nary formerly referred to a "discharge under … [the plaintiffl bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.").
Cited 2 timesPublished33 Fed. Cl. 374 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 26, 1995
Relief against the United States requires a waiver of sovereign immunity. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 , 96 S.Ct. 948, 953 , 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976), (citing United States v. … With Title VII, Congress established a system of procedural mechanisms by which employees may pursue discrimination claims. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17.
Cited 31 timesPublished120 Fed. Cl. 698 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 7, 2015
It is well established that “‘subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court’s power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or waived.’ ” Arbaugh v. … Barnard’s income level qualifies him for informa pauperis status, however, as discussed above, his complaint is being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Cited 0 timesPublishedG4s Technology LLC v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 11, 2014
Cir. 1997) (plaintiff must “fall within a class clearly intended to be benefited thereby”). … Indeed, because waivers of sovereign immunity are construed narrowly, the right to sue the government on a contract to which one is not a party constitutes an “exceptional privilege.” Glass v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedAscendant Services, LLC v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 8, 2022
Plaintiff does not appear to take issue with the scope of the IT disciplines that will qualify, however. … The two terms—joined by a slash—are clearly modified in the same way.
Cited 0 timesPublished133 Fed. Cl. 405 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 3, 2017
The Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity and allows a plaintiff to sue the United States for money damages, United States v. … court lacked jurisdiction over plaintiffs' "contract claims arising out of the use 4 of plea agreements in the criminal justice system" because such agreements did not "'clearly
Cited 19 timesPublishedOmran Holding Group v. United States
128 Fed. Cl. 273 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 14, 2016
Rather, all a protester must establish to demonstrate prejudice is that it has a substantial chance of receiving the contract—that it is a qualified bidder and could compete for the contract.”) … Omran did not mention this situation in its assertion of standing and it is clearly inapplicable under the facts of this case. C.
Cited 5 timesPublished120 Fed. Cl. 85 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 29, 2015
Reviewing the evidence submitted by Colonel O’Brien, the BCNR found that the evidence was insufficient to establish material error or injustice. … Accordingly, when a separation or retirement date has been established, every effort must be made to effect the servicemember’s discharge on that date.
Cited 4 timesPublishedThe Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States
69 Fed. Cl. 148 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 19, 2005
Clearly, this requirement is satisfied. Based on the foregoing, the court finds that PB has a right to intervene. … The Cherokee Nation contends that the distinct nature of the payment fund demonstrates that the government did not waive sovereign immunity for this type of suit. Id.
Cited 6 timesPublished32 Fed. Cl. 149 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 28, 1994
pursuit of this goal will, on occasion, result in periods of relative illiquidity;” that “liquidity is not generally an issue;” and that, whenever a choice was to be made, “returns gained through capital appreciation are clearly … As such, it is insufficient to establish a genuine dispute. See Keebler, 866 F.2d at 1388-89 .
Cited 1 timesPublished104 Fed. Cl. 92 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 15, 2012
The Judge Clearly ask the Plaintiff did anyone make him any offer, the Plaintiff Public Representative instructs Plaintiff into the Perjury While State Attorney Witness it with no objection. … “While a pro se plaintiff is held to a less stringent standard than that of a plaintiff represented by an attorney, the pro se plaintiff, nevertheless, bears the burden of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction by a preponderance
Cited 13 timesPublishedRefaat v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 15, 2026
In order to qualify for a Table presumption of causation for GBS, a petitioner must establish that she experienced the onset of her symptoms within 3-42 days of the subject flu vaccination, and that she satisfies the criteria … of the petitioner’s immune system that led to a rapid onset of GBS and thus a 1-day onset was appropriate); Shyface v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedC.R. Pittman Construction Co. v. United States
92 Fed. Cl. 20 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 10, 2010
Therefore, only the pumping stations qualify as “permanent work” under its ordinary meaning. … Even though the Court has already held that the ordinary meaning of “part of the permanent work” clearly establishes responsibility on the part of the Plaintiff, the Court will nevertheless address the four other contract
Cited 3 timesPublishedScience Applications International Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 7, 2022
immunity. … The party must make its initial damages disclosure “within 14 days after the Early Meeting of Counsel,” unless the court establishes a different deadline. Rule 26(a)(1)(C).
Cited 0 timesPublishedPeople of Bikini v. United States
77 Fed. Cl. 744 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 2, 2007
United States, 333 F.3d 1295, 1316 (Fed.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 … Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 , 111 S.Ct. 453 , 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990), established the current law involving the doctrine of equitable tolling against the Government: A waiver of sovereign immunity “ ‘cannot
Cited 5 timesPublishedLee v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 2, 2022
Legal Standards Regarding Fact Finding Petitioner bears the burden of establishing her claims by a preponderance of the evidence. § 13(a)(1). … The assessment was weakness status post immunization, most likely GBS reaction. Id.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDouglas J. Smith v. United States
111 Fed. Cl. 740 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 19, 2013
The Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity and grants jurisdiction, but it does not create a substantive cause of action. Jan’s Helicopter Serv., Inc. v. F.A.A., 525 F.3d 1299, 1305–06 (Fed. Cir. 2008). … Similarly, plaintiff seeks to establish Tucker Act jurisdiction over a claim to recover taxes.
Cited 5 timesPublishedAlsaadeh v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 20, 2024
Whitton is not qualified to opine on diagnosis, the undersigned will not discuss this part of his expert report. 31 relied on the diagnosis of AIED. Resp. Ex. A at 3. … Whitton, a qualified immunologist. See Locane v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 685 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedInformation Sciences Corp. v. United States
78 Fed. Cl. 673 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 25, 2007
United States, 67 Fed.Cl. 494, 496 (2005) (maintaining that a qualifying party under the EAJA satisfy net worth limitations). … United States, 226 F.3d 1318, 1321 (Fed.Cir.2000) (“As a waiver of sovereign immunity, the EAJA is interpreted narrowly. But this is not a talisman for permitting the [Gjovemment to avoid liability in all cases.”).
Cited 4 timesPublishedFIORELLO v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 9, 2024
Oppenheimer’s record includes an impression from a qualified specialist that R.F.’s initial episode was an immune reaction to the vaccine, it is not ultimately strong evidence. As respondent stresses, the fact that Dr. … Conclusion R.F. has clearly suffered and for that he and his family have my sympathy.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna