Case law

Lambro v. United States

United 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.

Fisher v. United States

69 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.

Supernaw v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 9, 2024

that he received a vaccine covered by the Program, administered either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited exception; suffered the residual effects of his … for immunization.

Christofferson v. United States

64 Fed. Cl. 316 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 28, 2005

Leaders of this nature do not qualify for exemption as executive employees. … An example would be subsection (a)(1), which excludes hours that would qualify under 5 U.S.C. § 5545 (c)(1).

Wright v. United States

32 Fed. Cl. 54 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 13, 1994

DISCUSSION It is a fundamental precept of our judicial system that “[t]he United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it *56 consents to be sued, and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that … They thereby establish a fiduciary relationship and define the contours of the United States’ fiduciary responsibilities.” Mitchell II, 463 U.S. at 224 , 103 S.Ct. at 2971-72 .

Arctic King Fisheries, Inc. v. United States

59 Fed. Cl. 360 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 27, 2004

For example, it complains that Congress should have selected a different qualifying period — predictably, a longer one, under which plaintiff would have qualified. … and just what they qualify for.

Conway v. United States

United 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

Legacy Corporation of Illinois v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 4, 2024

See FAR 9.104-1 (listing standards for a prospective contractor to qualify as “responsible”); FAR 19.602-1(a), (b) (upon determining and documenting that an apparent successful small business offeror lacks certain elements … Even if briefly discussed, the record clearly shows the COC Review Committee did in fact consider the corrective actions that Legacy insists were ignored.

Rick Aviation, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 17, 2026

But this does not establish that DLA Energy’s email address received its proposal. … That subsection mandates that “[a]ll factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be stated clearly in the solicitation.” 48 C.F.R. § 15.304(d).

Fifth Third Bank v. United States

52 Fed. Cl. 829 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 12, 2002

More fundamentally, “in the Cóurt of Federal Claims neither notice nor considerations of prejudice can create or enlarge the waiver of sovereign immunity.” S. Cal. Fed. S & L Ass’n v. … The only other contractual authority identified by plaintiff necessarily is qualified by the specific authority in section 1729(f)(2).

Adams v. United States

42 Fed. Cl. 463 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 30, 1998

The 1992 legislation applied to all section 515 owners and established uniform restrictions on any right to prepay. … The legislative history relevant to the ease at bar clearly shows that Congress was concerned with contracts that contained prepayment option terms.

Nextec Applications, Inc. v. United States

114 Fed. Cl. 532 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 9, 2014

Thereafter, Brookwood filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that a substantial portion of the allegedly-infringing fabrics were produced as part of the 0003 Contract, entitling it to immunity under 28 U.S.C … 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.

Resource Investments v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 5, 2014

The court found that the operative facts in the district court case were “merely the conditions set forth in the statute” that had to be met to qualify for a land swap. Id. … In conclusion, plaintiffs’ cited authorities are clearly distinguishable from the case before the court.

Cinergy Corp. v. United States

55 Fed. Cl. 489 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 10, 2003

Section 446(b) then indicates that “if the method used does not clearly reflect income, the computation of taxable income shall be made under such method as, in the opinion of the Secretary [of the Treasury], does clearly … PSI’s case fits comfortably within the contours established in Chicago, Burlington.

Byrd v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 29, 2024

Whitton testified that he is not aware of any other vaccines that have been clearly shown to trigger GBS. Id. at 383. … LEGAL STANDARD The Vaccine Act was established to compensate vaccine-related injuries and deaths. § 10(a).

Gaiter v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 17, 2019

This is why his immunizations have some large gaps in time between them. l\/ls. … Such an outcome is clearly contrary to the plain language of the [Vaccine] Act.”

Kaw Nation of Oklahoma v. United States

103 Fed. Cl. 613 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 29, 2012

Sisk, “Yesterday and Today: Of Indians, Breach of Trust, Money, and Sovereign Immunity,” 39 Tulsa L.Rev. 313, 316-17, 320 (2003). … After all, as a counterbalance to the notion that waivers of sovereign immunity should be narrowly construed, it is well-established that courts are “vested with a ‘virtually unflagging obligation’ to exercise the jurisdiction

Wright v. United States

53 Fed. Cl. 466 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 28, 2002

The opinion testimony of qualified experts. 15. … With respect to factor 4, the Court examines the licensor’s established policy and marketing program to maintain his patent monopoly. This factor clearly works against Plaintiff.

Radke v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 23, 2026

See id. at *17 (“I find [that Althen prong one] has not been preponderantly established . . . . … The other paragraphs under the “Analysis” header better qualify as recitation and conclusion.

Rothstein v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 10, 2024

Her expertise as a clinical immunologist was stipulated to and she was qualified as an expert in immunology. Tr. 117-18. … Sriram’s credentials were stipulated to, and he was qualified as an expert in neurology and neuroimmunology. Tr. 165. Dr.