Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
1.42s
GTA Containers, Inc. v. United States
103 Fed. Cl. 471 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 22, 2012
The MCSC ultimately is bound by the language of the Solicitation, which clearly stated that it would compare offerors’ prices “against an evaluated quantity.” See AR 367. … for a contractor to fulfill its “critical military need,” the MCSC simply selected the offeror it had just ranked most qualified on that canceled Solicitation to fill the Delivery Order.
Cited 22 timesPublishedWorldtravelservice v. United States
49 Fed. Cl. 431 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 21, 2001
NIH sent the solicitation to thirty-four firms, and six qualifying offers were submitted to the agency. After reviewing these six proposals, NIH awarded the contract to the incumbent, WTS, on November 10, 1999. … NIH’s description of Omega’s offer clearly indicates that NIH reached that conclusion.
Cited 61 timesPublishedKoehl v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 3, 2025
When Petitioner was seen at OSF OH on March 28, 2018, the records “clearly state[] . . . that he’s been having problems with the back of his hands bilaterally with thinning of the skin . . . and that those problems began … Possibilities are not sufficient to establish causation. See, e.g., Waterman, 123 Fed.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMichie 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.”
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedHousing Authority of the City of New Haven v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 10, 2018
“The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). The waiver of immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” … Here, as in Holmes, plaintiffs rely on an express contract—in the instant case, the standard MTW agreement—to establish Tucker Act jurisdiction.
Cited 0 timesPublishedBeta Analytics International, Inc. v. United States
67 Fed. Cl. 384 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 29, 2005
R. at 1004, this does not establish that they met together to sign the document or, even if they did, that such meeting involved any discussions. … Gartrell’s score was clearly erroneous.
Cited 64 timesPublished82 Fed. Cl. 592 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 18, 2008
“[A] statute creates a right capable of grounding a claim within the waiver of sovereign immunity if, but only if, it ‘can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damage sustained … Schweitzer entered with the government do not indicate that the agreements “clearly and unmistakably” subjected the government to any monetary liability whatsoever for any breach, as required for the Court of Federal Claims
Cited 36 timesPublishedBp America Production Company v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 1, 2019
Money-Mandating Source of Law Having established that BP’s claims fall within the ambit of the Tucker Act, the Court turns its attention to the second requirement for establishing subject-matter jurisdiction: whether … And forcing BP to seek an administrative remedy would cause undue prejudice because it would be clearly inadequate. B.
Cited 0 timesPublishedContreras v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
116 Fed. Cl. 472 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 16, 2014
The court has found no authority, however, which states that a credibility determination is immune from review, particularly where, as here, extrinsic evidence has subsequently been disclosed which shows a lack of candor … Sladky provided more than one opinion in this case, as the record clearly shows. At the time of the filing of Dr. Sladky’s first report, petitioner’s expert Dr.
Vacated on other grounds by Contreras v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 844 F.3d 1363 (2017)Cited 13 timesPublishedFatima Mohamud, Parent of Koshin Yusuf, a Minor v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 30, 2013
This persistent inflammation led to a delayed immune-mediated process, molecular mimicry, which resulted in an autoimmune encephalopathy. Tr. at 8 and 12. … Haycraft, clearly states that Petitioner’s son was afebrile. Id.
Cited 0 timesPublishedK.L v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 10, 2018
“‘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. … Engstrand to even testify concerning her medical theory because she did not have ‘specialized expertise in the condition of epilepsy’ even though she is a highly qualified and experienced neurologist.”
Cited 0 timesPublishedGermaine v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 26, 2021
Santoro more clearly stated his opinions about the medical theory to “a reasonable degree of medical and scientific probability” and to “a high degree of medical certainty.” Exhibit 6 at 11. … Germaine has not established a persuasive theory by a preponderance of the evidence and, thus, he cannot establish all the elements to prevail on his claim. B.
Cited 0 timesPublishedSandoval v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 15, 2019
Costouros has served as an expert witness in the Vaccine Program and is qualified as an expert in orthopaedic surgery. 5 Dr. … She was able to…adequately and clearly explain the difference that the right shoulder injury…caused a significant change in her pain…” Tr. 290.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · May 9, 2023
See ECF No. 25 at 23 n.23 (noting that Lexmark is not a tax case, nor a case involving the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity). … holding that “the issues decided by the higher court need not be identical in order to be controlling,” but “must have undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly
Cited 0 timesPublishedHeritage of America, LLC v. United States
77 Fed. Cl. 66 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 16, 2007
Plaintiff has already established its entitlement to prevail on the merits. … The Court understands that “mere loss of money does not qualify as irreparable harm if the party can be made whole through money damages.” Hawaiian Dredging, 59 Fed.Cl. at 317 .
Cited 43 timesPublishedKALAJDZIC v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 18, 2024
Ahmed also tried to establish disease-causation. … Cir. 1991) (holding that “reversible error is extremely difficult to establish.”).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 31, 2025
The United States Court of Federal Claims has limited jurisdiction and may only hear a claim against the United States if Congress has specifically waived the government’s sovereign immunity from such a suit. … That Court clearly addressed the timeliness of the APA claims, and its holding “precludes this court from considering the timeliness issue again.” Angel, 172 Fed. Cl. at 117.
Cited 0 timesPublishedSystem Fuels, Inc. v. United States
120 Fed. Cl. 635 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 13, 2015
Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) (holding that the burden is on the party seeking to exercise jurisdiction clearly to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction). … Although the Government contends that transport by vehicle may have required modifications to the roads at Plaintiffs’ expense, this was not clearly established at trial. 7/22/14 TR at 695–96 (Supko) (stating that there was
Cited 4 timesPublishedAlaska Structures, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 7, 2019
Potential bidders had to provide pricing information for shelters and “product data on the item(s) being quoted [that were] detailed enough for the [Air Force] to clearly determine that the item(s) meet the salient [minimum … Both of the qualified offers thus submitted verification that moots this claim of error.
Cited 0 timesPublishedVanore v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 27, 2024
This kind of argument rests on a faulty logic common in Program cases: if vaccines stimulate the immune system, and there is a possible immune-mediated pathogenic explanation for an injury, then the expected immune process … Items of literature more specific to the ear, like Adams, did not establish that SNHL is only or predominantly mediated by immune processes, did not evaluate the extent to which a viral infection could cause this kind of
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna