Case law

Tenica & Associates, Inc v. United States

123 Fed. Cl. 166 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 17, 2015

Nothing in GAO’s decision expressly counsels against the action the agency took. 9 clearly affect the award and performance of a contract, this court has little difficulty concluding … Cl. 221, 225–26 (2014) (finding that plaintiff did not have the direct economic interest required to qualify as an interested party and dismissing plaintiff’s protest for lack of jurisdiction).

American Airlines, Inc. v. United States

75 Fed. Cl. 237 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2006

So there clearly is at least one other way to collect, and we don’t know just what— THE COURT: What specifically do you want to do? … Therefore, to the extent the Government is now seeking discovery to establish a counterclaim or set off, that time has passed.

Nash v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 1, 2022

Petitioner alleges that her minor daughter, U.C.N. suffered immune thrombocytopenic purpura (“ITP”) as a result of her February 16, 2016 Measles Mumps Rubella (“MMR”) vaccination. … There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated and clearly agreed to.

Godfrey v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 22, 2014

DECISION DISMISSING CASE1 On May 29, 2012, Ashton Godfrey filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program2 alleging that he suffered from an immune mediated illness as … Further, Petitioner has not opted not to attempt to establish that his alleged injuries were vaccine-caused. In this case, Mr.

Inserso Corporation v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 22, 2019

Although the Tucker Act explicitly waives the sovereign immunity of the United States against such claims, it “does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages.” … Moreover, plaintiff has failed to establish that, but for those debriefings, it had a substantive chance of receiving an award.

Schneidermann v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 15, 2026

(citing Phil Alderson, Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence: We Need to Report Uncertain Results and Do it Clearly, 328 BMJ 476 (2004) (Ex. 25)).) … Regarding Althen prong two, petitioner relies on the following as “key” points: a temporal association between vaccination and onset of symptoms; the established role of cytokines in pain syndromes; “the possibility of immune

Pamela Ann Dillon v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

114 Fed. Cl. 236 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 10, 2014

The chief special master accepted each of these experts as well-qualified. Id. … According to him, a flu vaccine could trigger an immune response targeting the myelin basic protein that provides a protective sheath around the body’s nerve fibers due to the structural similarity between components of

Interspiro, Inc. v. United States

72 Fed. Cl. 672 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 25, 2006

Scott contends that, similar to Telr-Instrument, where the court ruled that an offeror was ineligible for award because it qualified its warranty, here MSA has qualified its warranty because MSA retains a veto over who may … In such circumstances, Scott argues that MSA’s warranty is qualified and therefore MSA is ineligible for award.

Herms v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 29, 2024

Brawer opined the assessments “clearly excluded a multiple of other potential causes for [Petitioner’s] hearing loss.” Id. at 1-2. Dr. … Standards for Adjudication The Vaccine Act was established to compensate vaccine-related injuries and deaths. § 10(a).

Seaboard Lumber Co. v. United States

42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,340 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 7, 1998

Defendant argues that such acts are immunized from liability by the sovereign acts doctrine. … These acts were clearly public in nature and may properly be considered acts of the sovereign. They also were clearly not directed against this contract, nor had they any relationship with it. For instance in Tell v.

Bailey v. United States

46 Fed. Cl. 187 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 21, 2000

The Federal Circuit held: Clearly, Dico’s two actions seek the “same or ... overlapping relief,” Loveladies, 27 F.3d at 1554 . … UNR 1 established that § 1500 is a battle of pleadings.

Yanco v. United States

45 Fed. Cl. 782 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 18, 2000

Clearly, Officer Yanco was not acting within the line of duty at the time of his death. 5. … Such an inquiry is clearly legal in nature.

Olive v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 17, 2023

The decision also indicated that, to request reconsideration, plaintiff would have to provide “[m]edical documentation . . . from the time the injury occurred” that “clearly show[s] a combat related event.” … Accordingly, it again advised SSG Olive that if he sought reconsideration he must provide “medical documentation . . . from the time the injury occurred” and that “clearly show[s] a combat[-]related event.”

Herbert v. United States

32 Fed. Cl. 293 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 15, 1994

. § 1498 (b), which waives sovereign immunity for copyright infringement actions filed against the United States. … The parties’ intentions are clearly issues of fact material to the outcome of this case. CONCLUSION Defendant has not met its burden of establishing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

MAIMON v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 3, 2025

Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“[T]he Government not only waived sovereign immunity for its own unlawful use or manufacture of a patented invention, but, in most cases, assumed liability when its contractors did so.”). … That statute clearly tracks Article III’s “case-or-controversy requirement,” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992), and thus imports its minimum standards.

Amber Resources Co. v. United States

73 Fed. Cl. 738 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 31, 2006

Now pending is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (1) Establishing the Absence of Any Legally Cognizable “Benefits” to Be Offset Against Plaintiffs’ Restitution Award; (2) Establishing Their Entitlement to Recover … To the extent exploration has been unsuccessful, clearly the government has not benefitted.

MAIMON v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 3, 2025

Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“[T]he Government not only waived sovereign immunity for its own unlawful use or manufacture of a patented invention, but, in most cases, assumed liability when its contractors did so.”). … That statute clearly tracks Article III’s “case-or-controversy requirement,” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992), and thus imports its minimum standards.

In Re Downstream Addicks and Barker (Texas) Flood-Control Reservoirs v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 22, 2026

First, the Federal Circuit asked the Court to address whether the Induced Surcharges qualify as a temporary taking. Id. … In this case, where defendant is culpable for creating conditions it believes constituted an emergency, “the government immunity from liability under the necessity doctrine would stretch the doctrine too far.”

Jemal's Lazriv Water, LLC v. United States

114 Fed. Cl. 512 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 19, 2013

Any tax assessment by the OTR, according to Plaintiff’s definition, will qualify as a full assessment because the OTR always considers the improvements that still need to be made to a property when it calculates lease-up … The ultimate aim of contract interpretation is to arrive at a definition that most clearly reflects the original intentions of the parties. Alliant Techsystems Inc. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 566, 576 (2007).

Warren Trust v. United States

107 Fed. Cl. 533 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2012

A 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). … Plaintiffs Have Not Established That a Categorical Taking Has Occurred Even if plaintiffs could establish that government action had interfered with their property interest, they still would have to establish that taking