Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
0.30s
Lampe v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
42 Fed. Cl. 632 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 17, 1998
A petitioner can qualify for compensation by meeting the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 300aa-13, which reads in relevant part as follows: § 300aa-13. … The petitioners object to the determination of a preexisting condition in that “Rachael Lampe only began having abnormal neurological symptoms (i.e. pedaling movements) after she began receiving her DPT immunizations.”
Cited 3 timesPublishedAAA Pharmacy, Inc. v. United States
108 Fed. Cl. 321 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 20, 2012
Discussion Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed.Cir.1988); see also Naskar v. … Only when statutes or regulations have clearly expressed the Government’s intent to enter into a contractual arrangement with program participants have courts found an implied-in-fact contract. See, e.g., Grav v.
Cited 4 timesPublishedShamrock Foods Co. v. United States
92 Fed. Cl. 339 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 22, 2010
The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction, Alder Terrace, Inc. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed.Cir.1998) (citing McNutt v. Gen. … The waiver rule in Blue & Gold Fleet clearly states that a challenge to the terms of a solicitation is untimely and waived if filed after the bidding period. 492 F.3d at 1315 .
Cited 5 timesPublished126 Fed. Cl. 645 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 9, 2016
Bash opined that Major Adams “was clearly not fit for duty, particularly to fly an aircraft, when the Air Force separated him.” Id. at 139. … out retirement funds once a disability is found qualifying.”
Cited 6 timesPublishedPepsiamericas, Inc. v. United States
52 Fed. Cl. 41 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 20, 2002
In addition, Senior Management was concerned that continuing the Plan after the Pet spin-off would violate the IRC limits for qualified plans, and thus cause the Plan to lose its qualified status. … Defendant asserts the substance of this transaction clearly reveals that plaintiff is not entitled to a refund. A.
Cited 1 timesPublishedJem Transport, Inc. v. United States
120 Fed. Cl. 189 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 2, 2015
In order to establish the existence of a contract with the United States, a plaintiff must establish four elements: “(1) mutuality of intent to contract; (2) lack of ambiguity in offer and acceptance; (3) consideration; … The CDA is a waiver of sovereign immunity, and as such, its requirements must be “strictly construed in favor of the sovereign.” M. Maropakis, 609 F.3d at 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Orff v.
Cited 7 timesPublished83 Fed. Cl. 460 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 15, 2008
The Millennium Challenge Corporation (the “MCC”) is a United States Government corporation established in January 2004. … Although jurisdiction cannot be established by a litigant’s concession, see Industrial Addition Ass’n v.
Cited 25 timesPublished76 Fed. Cl. 593 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 29, 2007
The Tucker Act concurrently “waives the Government’s sovereign immunity for those actions.” Id. … Clearly, these regulations work in conjunction with one another.
Cited 7 timesPublishedKelly v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 18, 2022
Trollmo et al., Intra-articular immunization induces strong systemic immune response in humans, 82 IMMUNOLOGY 384 (1990) (Ex. 24).) Dr. … (Ex. 6, pp. 13-24) clearly establishes his condition prior to vaccination. (Id.) Though petitioner had an exacerbation of pain in May, Dr. Srikumaran insists that this pain was resolved with conservative treatments.
Cited 0 timesPublishedBrunson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 28, 2020
MacGinnitie indicated that epidemiologic studies clearly show no relation between vaccination and SIDS. (Id. at p. 5.) Dr. … The resulting report noted that “[a]ll controlled studies that have compared immunized versus nonimmunized children have found either no association or a decreased risk of SIDS among immunized children.”
Cited 0 timesPublishedApollo Computer, Inc. v. United States
32 Fed. Cl. 334 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 7, 1994
as, in the opinion of the Secretary, does clearly reflect income. … clearly reflect the income.”
Cited 4 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 20, 2022
Cir. 2003) (“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.”). 2. … The relevant inquiry for this case then is whether Plaintiff qualifies as a federal employee.
Cited 0 timesPublishedBuffalo Bills, Inc. v. United States
31 Fed. Cl. 794 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 31, 1994
[extrinsic materials are] examined with hesitation to determine whether there is a clearly expressed legislative intention contrary to the statutory language____” Madison Galleries, Ltd. v. … Thus, taxpayer's employment agreements are clearly nonqualified compensation plans within the meaning of Section 3121(v)(2)(A).
Cited 3 timesPublishedAmerican Federation of Government Employees v. United States
46 Fed. Cl. 586 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 10, 2000
Before Congress enacted the ADRA, the federal district courts heard post-award bid protest challenges to procurement decisions under the waiver of sovereign immunity provided for under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA … Accordingly, they cannot establish that they are “interested parties” under the ADRA.
Cited 20 timesPublished32 Fed. Cl. 301 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 15, 1994
This general rule does not apply, however, where a plaintiff’s statement of a jurisdictional basis is clearly without merit. Binderup v. … The rather general commitments alleged must be construed as promises to pay relocation expenses to plaintiff if and to the extent that he qualified himself to receive them.
Cited 16 timesPublished69 Fed. Cl. 193 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 6, 2006
In making this evaluation, the court first must consider whether class counsel is “qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the litigation.” … Clearly, it would not be the only issue in those cases where the IRS sought to offset previously undiscovered deficiencies. In addition, the class proposed by plaintiff is extremely broad.
Cited 32 timesPublishedRodriguez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 5, 2026
Simpson was qualified as an expert in neurology, neuromuscular medicine, electrodiagnostic medicine, and clinical neurophysiology. Tr. at 15. … 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.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedEnergy Capital Corp. v. United States
47 Fed. Cl. 214 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 25, 2000
When the briefing is completed, the court may establish the procedure for ruling on the application. Rule 81(e)(3). … The different language for the two different parts express this difference quite clearly.
Cited 2 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 3, 2019
The CO-OP program provided loans and grants to “qualified nonprofit health insurance issuers to offer qualified health plans in the individual and small group markets.” Id. … See 42 U.S.C. § 18041 (providing that if a state opts out or fails to establish an exchange, a reinsurance program, or a risk-adjustment program, HHS “shall establish and operate such exchange within the State and [HHS] shall
Cited 0 timesPublishedPiccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. v. United States
36 Fed. Cl. 330 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 19, 1996
The court does not find that a rent payment schedule will qualify as an “allocation” in all circumstances, however, the rent payment schedules in this case are clearly allocating rent according to the statutory language. … Treasury Regulations promulgated pursuant to the statutory consent requirement clearly define the parameters of the statute. Treas.Reg. § 1.446-l(e).
Cited 6 timesPublished
Ask Donna