Case law

Labat-Anderson Inc. v. United States

50 Fed. Cl. 99 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 27, 2001

Whether this court has jurisdiction depends upon the extent to which the United States has waived its sovereign immunity. United States v. … JHM analogizes the award of the Blanket Purchase Agreement to the establishment of a charge account.

Kawa v. United States

77 Fed. Cl. 294 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 28, 2007

Congressional consent to suit in the Court of Federal Claims, which thereby waives sovereign immunity, must be explicit and strictly construed. United States v. … The Government, according to plaintiff, has failed to establish privity. PL’s Opp’n 38-39.

Peters v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 28, 2020

immunity waiver, we typically employ a “fair interpretation” test. … “Binding precedent establishes that the Court of Federal Claims has no jurisdiction to review the merits of a decision rendered by a federal district court.” Shinnecock Indian Nation v.

Ginsburg v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 31, 2018

A court must grant summary judgment “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at … Unless an exclusion applies, payments that are “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion” constitute taxable income. Commissioner v.

Parker v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 24, 2017

"The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued." United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941 ). … The waiver of immunity "may not be inferred, but must be unequivocally expressed." United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 472 (2003).

Wrona v. United States

40 Fed. Cl. 784 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 22, 1998

The Board found that Network 24’s appeal was “clearly untimely” as it was filed more than 30 days after the final determination was made in Husk’s February 28, 1989 letter. … “Only Congress can lengthen the time period for bringing suit against the United States____ The statute of limitations is an express limitation on the Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity.” Id. (citing Soriano v.

Red River Holdings, LLC v. United States

87 Fed. Cl. 768 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 17, 2009

Another waiver of sovereign immunity, the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., allows for suits against the United States for negligence. … The claim for contractual liquidated damages was clearly “ ‘arising out of maritime contracts’” and was maritime.

Nathan T. Meidl v. United States

114 Fed. Cl. 607 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 30, 2014

The burden of establishing jurisdiction falls upon the plaintiff. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. … Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) (holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction); see also RCFC 12(b)(1) (establishing lack of subject matter jurisdiction as a defense).

Zainulabeddin v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 20, 2018

"The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued." United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). … Zainulabeddin' s regulatory takings claim, she has failed to establish a plausible claim for relief.

Professional Analysis, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 3, 2025

Offerors are to clearly detail any exceptions taken and the rationale for the exceptions taken to the solicitation. … CACI’s proposal contained reservations and assumptions, though MSC found that none qualified as an “exception” to the Solicitation’s terms.

Correira v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 3, 2025

Cl. 681, 700 (“[A] special master must clearly articulate its reasons for its conclusions.”). … Schonberger et al., Guillain Barre Syndrome Following Vaccination in the National Influenza Immunization Program, United States, 1976-1977, 110 Am. J.

Jones v. United States

118 Fed. Cl. 728 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 20, 2014

The Federal Circuit found that “the word ‘employee’ clearly includes those who work part time,” and therefore OPM’s regulations were inconsistent with the plain meaning of the statute. Id. … In these administrative claims, the burden of proof was placed on the employee to establish and prove through documentation that he or she was a part-time worker who qualified for Sunday premium pay and had not received the

Finkelstein v. United States

29 Fed. Cl. 611 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 1, 1993

Such a reading would revoke those statutes by implication, which clearly is impermissible under established principles of statutory construction. See United States v. … Each of these categories clearly *619 requires actual, not constructive, “service” or "duty.” . AR 624-100, para. 2-3c, refers to "time in grade” requirements.

Johnson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 23, 2026

Not only does the wild flu virus have the capacity to activate more immune pathways 13 than the flu vaccine, but none of the referenced literature herein establishes an association … In attempting to establish entitlement to a Vaccine Program award of compensation for a Non-Table claim, a petitioner must satisfy all three of the elements established by the Federal Circuit in Althen v.

Maniere v. United States

31 Fed. Cl. 410 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 17, 1994

Privity of Contract as a Jurisdictional Basis No jurisdiction exists in this Court absent the waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States. United States v. … See id. at 430 (“For purposes of determining whether a party qualifies as a third-party beneficiary, a court should focus its inquiry upon only the first prong * * *.”).

Johnson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 14, 2025

Jamieson’s concern that Petitioner did not have a clearly defined sensory level, Dr. … To establish entitlement to compensation under the Program, a petitioner is required to establish each of the three prongs of Althen by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.

Renda Marine, Inc. v. United States

71 Fed. Cl. 378 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 29, 2006

A party must establish both jurisdictional prerequisites to proceed in this court. E.g., Alliant Techsys. Inc. v. … (“[T]he Government has not waived its sovereign immunity with respect to any breach claims.”) (emphasis added).

Tindle v. United States

56 Fed. Cl. 337 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 30, 2003

Getts also testified that chlamydia can resolve or be cured by the person’s own immune system without any specific treatment. … Plaintiffs objection *345 clearly does not meet the standards for this court’s review.

Innovation Development Enterprises of America, Inc. v. United States

108 Fed. Cl. 711 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 29, 2013

Standing Defendant relies on Myers, 275 F.3d at 1370-71, for the proposition that IDEA must establish that it would have been a qualified bidder for CMAS support services in a competitive procurement. … Here, however, IDEA’s status as a qualified bidder that had a substantial chance of contract award in a hypothetical competitive procurement may be established by material before the agency at the time of the sole-source

Doninger Metal Products, Corp. v. United States

50 Fed. Cl. 110 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 31, 2001

The Plan clearly states that the Committee “may have the Debtor bring the claim against the USPS” if the Committee elects to do so. … Defendant, however, does assert that the plaintiff utterly fails to establish that the originals were made available to the United States during this de novo proceeding, nor is it able to affirmatively establish that the