Case law

Williams v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 9, 2024

Akbari is not a medical doctor and is not qualified to diagnose or treat neurological conditions. b. Diagnosis Opinion Dr. … He opined that FM is immune mediated and that both the innate 44 and adaptive 45 immune systems are involved in its development. Id. at 5-6. Starting with the innate immune system, Dr.

Stephenson v. United States

33 Fed. Cl. 63 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 31, 1994

This was clearly noted in the original order, (see Stephenson, 33 Fed.Cl. at 75), and is reiterated here. … United States, 960 F.2d 1048, 1050 (Fed.Cir.1992) that condemnation statutes do not waive the government's immunity from property owners' "counterclaims” clearly does not prohibit a defendant from alleging an earlier date

Norwest Bank Arizona, N.A v. United States

41 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,137 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 10, 1997

The Anti-Assignment Acts generally prohibit the assignment of government contracts unless: (1) the assignee is a qualified financial institution; (2) funds lent or made available are for performance of the contract; and ( … In D & H, the contracting officer clearly assented to the transfer of lights under the contract to D & H, because the contracting officer expressly adopted the new payment arrangement as part of the contract.

Dakota Tribal Industries v. United States

34 Fed. Cl. 295 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 3, 1995

The non-moving party bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed.Cir.1988). 2. … Relying on the “acknowledged privity of contract” upon which plaintiffs claims were clearly grounded, id. at 525, 527 , Judge Gibson concluded that an action for breach of contract would lie.

Mlb Transportation, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 21, 2025

There is no evidence in the record that the VA obtained a Supplier Qualifier Report on MLB prior to contract award. … The proposal submitted by MB clearly states that it is “currently a . . . service disabled veteran company.” [ECF 20-1] at 194 (emphasis added).

Freed v. United States

34 Fed. Cl. 715 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 30, 1996

If subject matter jurisdiction is questioned, the non-moving party bears the burden of establishing the court’s jurisdiction. Reynolds, 846 F.2d at 748 . … Rather, it waives the United States’ sovereign immunity when an independent substantive right exists and when certain conditions are met. United States v.

Nicely v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 27, 2020

This Court’s jurisdiction to entertain claims and grant relief depends on the extent to which the United States has waived sovereign immunity. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976). … Similar qualifiers exist for the Secretaries of the Navy and Army. See 10 U.S.C. §§ 5013(a), 7013(a) (providing for appointment from “civilian life” and imposing five-year qualifier after relief from active duty).

Fisher v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 7, 2022

Fisher’s proposed methodologies are capable of establishing classwide harm and damages. Even if Mr. … Fisher’s expert in this case are clearly less robust than those applied by Dr. Mangum in Olean Wholesale. Whereas Dr. Mangum constructed, applied, 6 Mr.

Austin v. United States

124 Fed. Cl. 410 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 2, 2015

Standard for Summary Judgment The standards for granting summary judgment are well established. … Contrary to Plaintiffs’ argument, the term “workdays” in section 6 clearly refers to the workdays that have been designated as holidays under those sections.

Alamo Travel Group, LP v. United States

108 Fed. Cl. 224 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 27, 2012

Even were it not waived, the plaintiff has not identified any statute or regulation that was clearly violated by the government’s actions. … For the reasons stated above, with no likelihood of success on the *235 merits established, the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. .

767 Third Avenue Associates v. United States

30 Fed. Cl. 216 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 21, 1993

Cl. 69 (1992), held that [i]t is well established that a takings claim cannot succeed under the Fifth Amendment if a government action, although causing economic harm, “[does] not interfere with interests that ... … The record clearly reflects that Sage was on notice of the risks that attend leasing to international tenants in 1981 as well as 1991.

Carabetta Enterprises, Inc. v. United States

68 Fed. Cl. 410 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 19, 2005

If Southford Park did qualify, the question remained whether it would have received loans under Title II or Title VI. … The incentives established by LIHPRHA and ELIHPA shifted the balance of risk and opportunity toward retention of the properties.

Peninsula Group Capital Corp. v. United States

93 Fed. Cl. 720 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 6, 2010

That Act waives the sovereign immunity of the federal government for certain claims brought in this court, including “claim[s] against the United States founded ... upon any express or implied contract with the United States … The language plaintiff used in that letter, however, clearly indicates that it was not an offer.

Board of Supervisors of Issaquena County, Mississippi v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 3, 2024

Thus, accrual begins on the date in “which the plaintiff's land has been clearly and permanently taken,” Boling, 220 F.3d at 1370, according to an “objective” reasonable person in plaintiff’s position, see Grass Valley Terrace … of sovereign immunity, are jurisdictional in nature.”); see also John R.

Armstrong v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 10, 2026

To establish entitlement to compensation under the Program, a petitioner is required to establish each of the three prongs of Althen by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. … I am not qualified to, nor am I mandated with the task of diagnosing Petitioner. I am inclined to afford considerable deference to Petitioner’s treaters, despite Dr. Roos’ critique of their comprehensiveness.

Metzinger v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 28, 2025

For a business record to be admissible, “a custodian or another qualified witness” must establish that it was made and kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)(D). … Metzinger also argues that the spreadsheet and the few documents the government has produced do not clearly establish what each lump-sum payment accounts for.

Aclr, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 15, 2021

In context, it is clear that the qualifiers plaintiff asserts exist on the payment of interest do not actually apply. … The prohibition on the payment of interest on borrowings stands alone in this list; it is not qualified in any way. See id.

Bank United v. United States

49 Fed. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 19, 1999

Plaintiffs made an offer, which was accepted, and the intention of the parties to settle the dispute is clearly demonstrated in Mr. … Just as one cannot turn iron into gold, one cannot turn facts that flatly contradict the existence of an accord and satisfaction into facts that establish one.

Navarro Research & Engineering, Inc. v. United States

94 Fed. Cl. 224 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 16, 2010

The government, however, argues that Navarro does not qualify as an interested party and thus lacks standing. … The RFQ issued here, however, was issued under the authority found in Title 40, which establishes the GSA FSS.

Jennifer Lanclos v. United States

133 Fed. Cl. 113 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 12, 2017

The specific language of the agreement at issue in the present matter clearly and unambiguously indicates that the government agreed, by basic grammatical function of the terms in the agreement, to guarantee payments to plaintiff … According to defendant, the “authorized amount was insufficient to make or guarantee each future payment, conclusively establishing that plaintiff’s interpretation of the settlement should be rejected.” Id.