Case law

USfalcon, Inc. v. United States

92 Fed. Cl. 436 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 21, 2010

Tech., 316 F.3d at 1319 (finding that standing was established assuming the protester succeeds on its argued grounds); Beta Analytics Int’l, Inc. v. … A substantial chance of receiving a contract award has thus been established.

Nielsen-Dillingham Builders, J.V. v. United States

43 Fed. Cl. 5 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 6, 1999

Reference to manufacturers and suppliers is intended to establish the standards of performance and quality.” 1 The paragraphs that follow the *8 foregoing mandate establish the technical and performance standards for “Workstation … A fact qualifies as material if it would affect the outcome of the case. See id. at 248 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 .

Owl Creek Asia I, L.P v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 8, 2020

That gap is too much in light of the court’s obligation to narrowly construe the Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity. … Second, plaintiffs have not asserted claims that qualify as both direct and derivative based on the dual-nature exception.

MVM, Inc. v. United States

46 Fed. Cl. 126 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 21, 1999

the actions of the United States in awarding the contract were: *130 (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … The United States maintains that the Administrative Record clearly shows what the CO did.

Marathon Targets, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 21, 2025

Brooks had “clearly manufactured” the evidence to support his company’s use of the protected information to challenge the TMIT award. See AR 3464. … The Government and MVP respond that the requirements are clearly laid out in the PWS. See ECF No. 49 at 31; ECF No. 50 at 38–39.

Stapp Towing Inc. v. United States

40 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,839 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 27, 1995

However, the obligation timely and clearly to establish a contractor’s capability to perform a contract lies with the offeror. 48 C.F.R. § 9.103 (e) (1994). … Abdnor, 933 F.2d 261, 264 (5th Cir.1990) (according great deference to SBA’s interpretation and application of its regulation on qualifying as small business); C & G Excavating, Inc. v.

Horowitz v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 5, 2024

never immunized in [New York City]. Engerix AHBVC857AA.” Ex. 39 at 2. … While such entities clearly “do business” in the U.S.

Shoshone Indian Tribe of the Wind River Reservation v. United States

52 Fed. Cl. 614 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 6, 2002

“need not provide a second waiver of sovereign immunity .... ” Mitchell II, 463 U.S. at 218-19 , 103 S.Ct. 2961 . … obligation to manage timber with the government’s lesser obligations under the GAA: In contrast to the bare trust created by the General Allotment Act, the statutes and regulations [regarding timber management] now before us clearly

Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc. v. United States

108 Fed. Cl. 162 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 5, 2012

court’s discussion of the “otherwise in privity” factors in a section titled “Intent of the Parties”); Lockheed Martin I, 50 Fed.Cl. at 566 (“[For] the central Johnson Controls analysis[,] [because waivers of sovereign immunity … Thus, the second “otherwise in privity” factor does not clearly weigh against plaintiffs’ allegation that GIT and the United States are in privity.

Matthews v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 31, 2022

The form also included an unchecked box next to the prompt “Previously immunized this flu season.” … “Clearly it is not then the role of this court to reweigh the factual evidence, or to assess whether the special master correctly evaluated the evidence.

Michie v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 18, 2024

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 in Althen v. … Wright clearly deems some kind of physical, somatic impact of the vaccine injury to be the essence of an injury’s “residual effect.”

Gregory v. United States

37 Fed. Cl. 388 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 25, 1997

Form 1944-51 also includes a section for an official from FmHA to certify that the applicant qualifies for FmHA assistance. … These regulations clearly demonstrate, then, that execution and delivery of the approval form represents the exclusive manner of communicating the government’s approval/acceptance of a loan application.

Crestview Clinical Laboratory, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 24, 2026

a showing that the plaintiff qualifies for that payment by satisfying designated statutory or regulatory requirements.” … Such communications are clearly relevant and discoverable, and likely would make appropriate exhibits to a motion for summary judgment.

Mason Capital L.P. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 8, 2020

That gap is too much in light of the court’s obligation to narrowly construe the Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity. … Second, plaintiffs have not asserted claims that qualify as both direct and derivative based on the dual-nature exception.

Carson, Jr. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 9, 2022

Clearly, the VA was successful in its argument. … This change in positions clearly works to Plaintiff’s detriment.

Cherokee Nation v. United States

73 Fed. Cl. 467 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 24, 2006

The Tucker Act establishes the jurisdiction of this court. … First, typically, the rule applies to statutes where there are two or more antecedents, followed by a qualifier in which it is unclear whether the qualifier applies only to the last item in the series or to all of the items

Acuity Edge, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 24, 2024

However, the solicitation’s carve-out clearly allows for proposal revisions in order to enable “eligibility requirements [to] be made acceptable to the Government.” AR 1153. … First, Summit also effectively proposed a incumbency capture rate: “We capture all qualified incumbents and provide the PM from Summit’s own workforce.

Orbis Sibro, Inc. v. United States

117 Fed. Cl. 446 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 18, 2014

“In other words, once the task or delivery order contract itself has been obtained through full and open competition, orders made pursuant to that contract are immune from CICA’s full and open competition requirements.” … Such a stratagem attempts to evade the bar of task order bid protests clearly enunciated in Section 253j(d). But see Cmty.

Four Rivers Investments, Inc. v. United States

77 Fed. Cl. 592 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 27, 2007

However, 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 court agrees that plaintiff has not established a valid jurisdictional basis for its challenge to the tax lien-related collections by the IRS, as more fully explained below.

City of Wilmington, Delaware v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 8, 2021

PX 1, a DNREC-issued Water Quality Certificate, clearly identifies DNREC’s action – permitting the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge the federal properties subject to certain conditions – and the government does not contest … Third, although the portions of PX 4 that Wilmington now seeks to admit, see supra n. 3, may not qualify as a public record, what remains at issue is a series of documents that the Army Corps of Engineers submitted to DNREC