Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
0.65s
70 Fed. Cl. 649 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 8, 2006
MTD was covered under the Westinghouse Qualified Pension Plan, a qualified pension plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (2000) (“ERISA”), and the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”). … ESG was covered under the Westinghouse Qualified Pension plan, which was a qualified pension plan under ERISA and the IRC.
Cited 9 timesPublished27 Fed. Cl. 832 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 25, 1993
D., 1 a consulting engineer, who qualified as an expert in riverbank instability, erosion, landsliding, engineering, geology, and geotechnical engineering. … These 30 photographs were taken in 1974, before the Hannibal pool elevation was raised, in 1978, after the pool was established at its normal level, as well as in 1979, 1980, and 1982. Mr.
Cited 8 timesPublished116 Fed. Cl. 71 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 2, 2014
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. … Although plaintiffs income level and absence of savings may qualify him for in forma pauperis status, as discussed and determined above, plaintiffs complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in this court.
Cited 3 timesPublished121 Fed. Cl. 807 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 12, 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. … Ba-ber’s income level may qualify him for in forma pauperis status, -as discussed above, his complaint is being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. CONCLUSION .
Cited 0 timesPublished78 Fed. Cl. 211 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 9, 2007
Plaintiffs view is clearly at odds with the IRC. … The waiver of immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 , 89 S.Ct. 1501 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969).
Cited 25 timesPublishedD. Golmakani v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 7, 2013
Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-1, et seq., as amended (“Vaccine Act”).3 Petitioner alleges as a result of receiving the influenza (“flu”) vaccination on August 23, 2009 she suffers from “an auto-immune … Petitioner Has Acted in Good Faith and Has Established a Reasonable Basis for the Claim to the Time of Former Counsel’s Withdrawal.
Cited 0 timesPublished57 Fed. Cl. 204 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 30, 2003
Barnes may not be qualified for promotion satisfies the statute. … Clearly communication via email was possible.
Cited 6 timesPublished82 Fed. Cl. 185 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 30, 2008
Chisolm’s application did not qualify for reconsideration under the remaining criteria. Tab G to PL’s Opp’n at 36. As a consequence, the application was returned without Correction Board action. Id. … Def.’s Mot. at 10-13. 11 The result of such preclusion would be not the establishment of an affirmative defense, as could be accomplished under RCFC 12(b)(6), but rather the establishment of a lack of jurisdiction.
Cited 40 timesPublished43 Fed. Cl. 561 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 22, 1999
Application of both doctrines is central to the purpose for which civil courts have been established, the conclusive resolution of disputes within their jurisdictions. Southern Pacific R. … The statute of limitations time limit “is jurisdictional in nature and, as an express limitation on the waiver of sovereign immunity, may not be waived.” Hart v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedDaniels Building Company, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 2, 2025
Electrical Group, LLC (“VEG”) qualified as an eligible small business for contract award. Daniels Building Company, Inc. … Daniels challenges OHA’s determination that VEG qualified as an eligible small business. (See generally Pl.’s MJAR).
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 24, 2020
“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 “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” … As defendant asserts, see Def.’s Mot. 15, the events necessary to establish the government’s alleged liability for this breach occurred by October 14, 2009.
Cited 0 timesPublishedChenega Management, LLC v. United States
96 Fed. Cl. 556 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 14, 2010
For these reasons, the court has determined that Plaintiff has failed to establish a violation of FAR 1.602-2. 4. Plaintiff Failed To Establish The Air Force Evaluators Were Not Qualified. … For these reasons, Plaintiff has failed to establish that members of the SSET were not qualified. VII. CONCLUSION.
Cited 30 timesPublishedToni and Vin Hoover Property Management, LLC v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 6, 2023
The Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity “covers a broad range of potential disputes arising during the course of the procurement process[,]” including “objections to an award[.]” Sys. Application & Techs., Inc. v. … The GSA utilized the estimate to establish the replication costs applied to Hoover’s NPV evaluation. See AR 1355.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority v. United States
57 Fed. Cl. 751 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 22, 2003
These facts shall be deemed established for purposes of future proceedings in this case. RCFC 56(d). . … Thus, while the doctrines incorporate similar requirements, they proceed from independent lines of authority: the sovereign acts doctrine from early Court of Claims decisions (circa 1865) applying concepts of sovereign immunity
Cited 30 timesPublishedFoukarakis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 16, 2025
Clearly defined sensory level 4. … Bromberg opined that Petitioner partially fulfilled the criterion of clearly defined sensory level. Resp. Ex. A at 11.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished124 Fed. Cl. 334 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2015
As interpreted bythe United States Supreme Court, the Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity to allow jurisdiction over claims against the United States (1) founded on an express or implied contract with the United States, … Nie's lack of income and current incarceration may qualify him for in forma pauperis status, and although plaintiff submitted the copy of his prison trust fund statement, as discussed above, his complaint is being dismissed
Cited 4 timesPublishedMiller v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 7, 2016
There are two separate means of establishing entitlement to compensation. … If a person qualifies under this presumption, he or she is said to have suffered a “Table Injury.”
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedFiltration Development Co., LLC v. United States
63 Fed. Cl. 418 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 17, 2004
As was discussed above, plaintiff has not established through clear and convincing evidence likelihood of success on the merits. … It is plaintiffs burden to clearly and convincingly demonstrate its entitlement to a preliminary injunction, which it has not done.
Cited 4 timesPublishedStrouse v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 19, 2026
The authors concluded: We have clearly demonstrated that the variability of humoral immune responses to the HepBsAg in vaccine recipients is reflected by a concurrent variability of in vivo cellular … Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, the undersigned finds that petitioner has established by preponderant evidence that the immune response to the second hepatitis B vaccine he received on August 9, 2018 was
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCheyenne & Arapaho Tribes v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 9, 2020
The plain language of the “bad men” clause clearly states that “the United States . . . is to reimburse the injured person for the loss sustained.” … Cl. 726, 737 (2007) (holding that a federal agency is incapable of qualifying as a “bad man” under the bad men provision).
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna