Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
1.88s
Allegheny Technologies Incorporated v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 31, 2019
The component of Medicare Part D that provides subsidies to qualifying employer-sponsored health plans through the RDS program is implemented in 42 C.F.R. §§ 423.880-.894. 2 The court did not dismiss plaintiff … Id. at 25 (“[Plaintiff] is a [Medicare] program participant that does clearly have . . . under Illinois Council, . . . judicial review in [federal] District Court under [28 U.S.C. §] 1331.”).
Cited 0 timesPublishedBlue Water Environmental, Inc. v. United States
60 Fed. Cl. 48 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 31, 2004
The plaintiff has failed to establish any of the factors necessary to establish a purchasing agent relationship under US West. … In this case, as in US West, the M & 0 contract with BSA clearly states that “[sjubeontracts shall be in the name of the contractor, and shall not bind or purport to bind the Government.” I.114(j).
Cited 9 timesPublishedMunoz v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 6, 2024
furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly … Efthimiou referenced evidence establishing that PMR occurs in a context of elevated cytokines (proinflammatory immune cells stimulated during the innate immune response) as well as “T helper cells,” which encourage the production
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedAnderson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 5, 2025
Cl. 613 (upholding dismissal of an entire claim where it was determined that onset of the petitioner’s GBS occurred too soon to qualify as on- or off-Table claim (one-to-two days following vaccination)). … , synergistically, in a faster 6 but aberrant immune stimulation process.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedZacharski v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 28, 2025
Lau claimed, thus established that anti-contactin-1 autoantibodies are one of the multiple immune antibodies that can cause chronic, axon-specific neuropathies. Tr. at 98. … As I noted earlier in my analysis, Petitioner could not clearly identify when Ms.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedChristofferson v. United States
78 Fed. Cl. 810 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 25, 2007
The party claiming the privilege bears the burden of establishing it. See id. … , and, in context, clearly refers to situations in which individual clients had questions or concerns about the lawsuit, and decided to contact someone for assistance.
Cited 1 timesPublishedTelesis Corporation v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 18, 2018
Subject to those restrictions, offerors could claim points for each qualifying project. Id. at 225-26. … Cl. 257, 259-60 (2000) (requiring clarification when the absence of information “clearly indicate[d] a clerical mistake”).
Cited 0 timesPublishedKMS Fusion, Inc. v. United States
42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,211 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 19, 1997
As with any waiver of sovereign immunity, the EAJA is to be construed strictly. See Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680, 685 , 103 S.Ct. 3274, 3277-78 , 77 L.Ed.2d 938 (1983). … The evidence established that DOE had done just that by making numerous representations to plaintiff that the necessary funds would be available.
Cited 26 timesPublishedKerr-McGee Corp. v. United States
36 Fed. Cl. 776 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 18, 1996
The United States contended that plaintiffs could not, as a matter of law, establish a legal or equitable claim. … An equitable claim arises from “an injury occasioned by Government fault” when there is “no enforceable legal remedy — due, for example, to the bar of sovereign immunity or the running of the statute of limitations.”
Cited 3 timesPublished48 Fed. Cl. 469 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 19, 2000
It is important, however, for the court to carefully “distinguish between incidental and indirect beneficiaries and direct beneficiaries, only the latter of which qualifies for third-party beneficiary status.” … Since the disclaimer clearly states defendant is not directly liable to third parties, plaintiffs cannot establish the third prong of the agency test.
Cited 11 timesPublishedSynernet Corp. v. United States
42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,351 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 29, 1998
“The Administrative Procedure Act does not establish jurisdiction in this court over claims for money.” Union Bank and Trust Co. v. … The court must consider whether NASA “ignored highly relevant evidence or formed a conclusion for which record support is absent or clearly inadequate to the commonsense observer.”
Cited 9 timesPublished121 Fed. Cl. 248 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 27, 2015
Stein would be at more than 20 years of service and would qualify for retainer pay.” … Stein would be at more than 20 years of service and would qualify for retainer pay.”
Cited 5 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 15, 2022
This Court’s jurisdiction is defined by the Tucker Act, which waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for “any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any … The Military Pay Act establishes entitlements to basic pay by uniformed servicemembers. 37 U.S.C. § 204(a).
Cited 0 timesPublishedMichie v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 8, 2024
Although clearly easier to meet than the preponderant standard required for compensation, “courts have struggled with the nature and quantum of evidence necessary to establish a reasonable basis.” Wirtshafter v. … Thus, only “conditions within the patient” qualify; speculation that an injury may reoccur does not. Id. at 1006; Dismissal Decision at 11.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished56 Fed. Cl. 453 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 8, 2003
The closing date was established for March 28, 2002, Pl.’s Ex. 1A, and Bannum submitted its proposal on March 26, 2002. Pl.’s Ex. 1; Tr. at 38. … It is clearly in the public interest for there to be fair and open government contracting. The court’s role in ensuring this fair and open government contracting is largely supervisory, however.
Cited 27 timesPublished96 Fed. Cl. 34 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 23, 2010
nor does the statute clearly foreclose the exercise of such discretion. … In short, the legislative history of the CSP statute does not clearly support either party’s extreme interpretation of the statute.
Cited 11 timesPublished84 Fed. Cl. 298 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 16, 2008
The answer clearly is not. 2. No United States successor agency exists to assume the CPA’s contract liability. … The United States clearly transferred sovereignty in Iraq from the CPA to the IIG, and with that, authority over DFI-funded contracts.
Cited 3 timesPublishedForest Products Northwest, Inc. v. United States
62 Fed. Cl. 109 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 17, 2004
But this contention clearly stands the statutory scheme on its head. … A party establishes good cause by specifically demonstrating that “disclosure will cause a clearly defined and serious injury.” Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir.1995).
Cited 18 timesPublishedLand Grantors in Henderson, Union & Webster Counties v. United States
71 Fed. Cl. 614 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 22, 2006
If the need for individual damages calculations was determinative, “there scarcely would be a case that would qualify for class status in this court.” … A threshold inquiry is whether class counsel is “qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the litigation.”
Cited 7 timesPublished81 Fed. Cl. 661 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 28, 2008
This statute of limitations “is a jurisdictional requirement attached by Congress as a condition of the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity and, as such, must be strictly construed.” MacLean v. … Where, as here, the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction is put into question, Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.
Cited 3 timesPublished
Ask Donna