Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
1.44s
Gardner v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 17, 2024
Cir. 2007) (noting that “the government bears the burden of establishing alternative causation . . . once petitioner has established a prima facie case”)). … Foley noted that petitioner’s “spinal cord disease clearly was related to his flu shot.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished34 Fed. Cl. 379 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 3, 1995
Investment Review Act (FIRA) requires a company controlled by nonresidents of Canada to file an application with the Foreign Investment Review Agency when the company seeks to acquire control of a Canadian business or to establish … It is likely that Kohler would not have qualified for the grant without incorporating in Canada.
Cited 2 timesPublishedMadala v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 24, 2024
“Petitioner contacted numerous qualified experts in immunology in an exhaustive search, including Petitioner’s treating physicians,” but Petitioner was “unable to secure a qualified immunologist to write an expert report. … Goldstein opined that the mechanism of injury here “is unknown but clearly different from other accepted triggers of anti-GBM disease.” Pet. Ex. 45 at 2.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedImpresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States
100 Fed. Cl. 750 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 2011
United States (Al Ghanim), 67 Fed.Cl. 494, 496 (2005) (stating that the applicant bears the burden of establishing that it is qualified for an award based on evidence of its net worth and size). … However, as the Federal Circuit clearly stated, the proper standard of review, “which is not limited to fraud or bad faith of the contracting officer,” was established prior to this case by the 1996 amendments to the Tucker
Cited 25 timesPublished124 Fed. Cl. 19 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 6, 2015
Taxpayers’ qualified investment for computing investment tax credit is the amount at risk set forth in paragraph #4. 6. … In the year at issue, the investment credit was equal to 10% of the qualified investment.13 Thus, plaintiffs assert that they were entitled to a credit of $10,000, which is 10% of their $100,000 qualified investment and amount
Cited 0 timesPublishedJones v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 21, 2025
He was thinking more clearly now. Id. The assessment at this visit was idiopathic peripheral neuropathy. Pet. Ex. 11 at 6. … Preceding infections are less frequently reported in CIDP, but infections during the course of CIDP may clearly worsen symptoms . . . most CIDP patients improve after steroids, whereas GBS
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUnited 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."' Arbauoh v. … As interpreted by the 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,
Cited 0 timesPublishedAssessment & Training Solutions Consulting Corp. v. United States
92 Fed. Cl. 722 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 2, 2010
Regulations Governing 8(a) Set-Aside Decisions Plaintiff argues that “the regulations and agreement between the agencies clearly show that there are prescribed procedures for setting aside a procurement for competition amongst … Defendant contends that ATSCC cannot establish competitive harm by relying on any alleged violation of FAR 19.805-1. Id.
Cited 8 timesPublishedProwest Diversified, Inc. v. United States
42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,293 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 13, 1998
Defendant, however, also questions whether plaintiff established its counsel’s usual billing rate and the nature of its fee agreement. See Naporano, 825 F.2d at 404. … In Pierce , the Court stated that: [T]he exception for “limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved” must refer to attorneys “qualified for the proceedings” in some specialized sense, rather than
Cited 22 timesPublishedCaves v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services
100 Fed. Cl. 119 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 24, 2011
of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FREs), which provides that: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified … See Munn, 970 F.2d at 873 (“Congress clearly determined that the Federal Rules of Evidence shall not be applied in vaccine-injury proceedings before a special master.”).
Cited 242 timesPublished102 Fed. Cl. 637 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 4, 2012
“On May 6, 2010 Plaintiff was informed in a letter from the Department of Education that he no longer qualified for Total and Permanent Disability.” Id. ¶ 8. In April 2011 plaintiffs student loans were reinstated. … The Tucker Act provides the waiver of sovei’eign immunity necessary for a plaintiff to sue the United States for money damages, see United States v.
Cited 8 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 25, 2022
The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction, and must do so by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. … Cl. at 128 (citing cases), unless those agreements “clearly and unmistakably subject[] the government to monetary liability for any breach,” Aluminum Shapes, LLC v. United States, 139 Fed.
Cited 0 timesPublishedInternational Air Response, Inc. v. United States
80 Fed. Cl. 460 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 15, 2008
Trial established that plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser for value qualifying for the protection of 40 U.S.C. § 544 . … Although the appendices accompanying its EAJA application are listed chronologically and denote clearly which attorneys’ fees were incurred before April 7, 2003, they do not denote which expenses were incurred before that
Cited 1 timesPublishedBraun v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 25, 2018
James, Immunization as a Model for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, 29 Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism 140 (1999) [Pet. … He suggested that a dermatologist would be better qualified to view the rash and rule out alternative etiologies. Dr. Brawer has not responded to this point. Dr.
Cited 0 timesPublishedWalker v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 8, 2024
Respondent argued that (1) petitioner has not established that she received a covered vaccine in her left arm; (2) petitioner has not established a Table SIRVA both because she has prior neck and shoulder problems and because … Specifically, the flu vaccine at issue clearly would not have been ordered two weeks after it was administered. (Ex. 8, p. 1; see also supra note 4.)
Cited 0 timesUnpublished102 Fed. Cl. 598 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 20, 2011
Federal Circuit precedent clearly establishes that, in the Trails Act context, the federal government is responsible for the “foreseeable consequences” of its actions in issuing the NITU. … liability is established.
Cited 22 timesPublishedPacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States
70 Fed. Cl. 128 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 14, 2006
Similarly, after citing the same language, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania stated that “a broad assertion of harm is [therefore] clearly not enough. … In addition, the largely routine internal agency documents that the government is withholding are not “predeeisional” and “deliberative” in the narrow sense necessary to invoke this privilege, a fact clearly shown by many
Cited 22 timesPublished93 Fed. Cl. 551 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 20, 2010
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Because subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold matter, it must be established before the ease can proceed on the merits. Steel Co. v. … In a motion for reconsideration, under RCFC 59(a), “manifest” is understood as “clearly apparent or obvious.”
Cited 24 timesPublishedAmerican Satellite Co. v. United States
40 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,869 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 1995
Thus, only twenty of the forty-four commercial payloads on the pre-Chai-lenger manifest qualified for an exception from the President’s ban. … That clause provided that, even if liability for breach were established, damages would be limited to a return of purchase price.
Cited 6 timesPublishedRedzepagic v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 15, 2025
She submits that GBS resulting from a flu vaccine is a “Table” injury, and “[t]herefore, a reputable medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and injury is clearly established and accepted by the government.” … While there is no definitive proof that petitioner suffered from an upper respiratory infection or that the symptoms she referred to as flu-like symptoms would qualify as an upper respiratory infection, Dr.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna