Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
1.28s
Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc. v. United States
49 Fed. Cl. 211 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 26, 2001
An objective was “to move toward a well established shared-lift network.” Justification at 2. … It is not irrational for agency officials to embrace an objective that cannot be attained wholly at the outset, as long as the objective is so qualified. 2.
Cited 42 timesPublishedEdwards v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 1, 2014
A.E. received her influenza immunization on September 30, 2009. 3. The vaccine was administered within the United States. 4. … Petitioners allege that A.E. sustained the first symptom or manifestation of her injury within one week of her immunization.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMontez Petronelli v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 25, 2013
No medical records prior to the immunization or from the day of the immunization were filed by petitioner. On October 21, 2010, petitioner was seen by her primary care physician, Dr. Sraboni Banerjee. … Ex. 12 at 5 (explaining that “the influenza immunization generated an immune response that cross reacted with antigen targets shared by the normal elements of nerve fibers to cause” petitioner’s GBS).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedLibertatia Associates, Inc. v. United States
46 Fed. Cl. 702 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 23, 2000
In rhetoric at least, it appears that this court is sometimes dropping the qualifying “well nigh” and resting with a standard requiring “irrefragable proof.” … Clearly these two inspectors rode around the base with the COR and were exposed to his strong opinions of plaintiff.
Cited 34 timesPublished77 Fed. Cl. 513 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 25, 2007
The Tucker Act provides the waiver of sovereign immunity necessary to sue the United States for money damages, but the plaintiff must establish an independent substantive right to money damages from the United States based … If an agreement is clearly written and the terms are unambiguous, the role of the court is to effectuate the mutual intent of the parties embodied in the agreement when interpreting its terms. See Conant v.
Cited 12 timesPublishedFetters v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 23, 2023
A special master’s decision constitutes an abuse of discretion if it is “(1) . . . clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) . . . based on an erroneous conclusion of the law; (3) . . . clearly erroneous; or (4) the … In an effort “to ensure that petitioners could obtain qualified assistance,” Congress mandated attorneys’ fee awards for successful petitioners and gave special masters discretion to award fees to unsuccessful petitioners
Cited 0 timesPublished114 Fed. Cl. 795 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 27, 2014
The Tucker Act waives the sovereign immunity of the United States to allow a suit for money damages (United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 215 (1983)), but it does not confer any substantive rights. United States v. … The statutory and regulatory provisions that form the bases for these claims are clearly “money-mandating,” as they require the VA “to pay employees certain amounts under certain circumstances.” Price v.
Reversed in part, on other grounds by Mercier v. United States, 786 F.3d 971 (2015)Cited 8 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 12, 2015
The March 15, 2013 letter, however, states clearly that "[t]his is not a payoff statement. Instructions on how to receive a payoff statement are on Page 2 of this letter." … Cl. 603, 607 (2009) ("[l]t is well-established that the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over tort claims. Here, Mr.
Cited 0 timesPublished82 Fed. Cl. 127 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 10, 2008
-made, qualifying country, or designated country” end products. … Our concern was triggered by what we viewed as clearly contradictory indications in Sea Box’s submission with respect to its TAA compliance.
Cited 14 timesPublishedHwi Gear, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 29, 2020
Offerors needed to certify that they qualified as a small business pursuant to 13 C.F.R. part 121. AR 4-66. … HWI appealed the decision to the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals (“OHA”), “contend[ing] that the size determination [was] clearly erroneous.” HWI Gear, Inc., SBA No.
Cited 0 timesPublishedSPARROW v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 12, 2024
Fenichel wrote: “While a cause-and-effect relationship between measles immunization and encephalopathy cannot be established from passive surveillance of cases reported to the CDC, the clustering of cases in the second week … after immunization is worrisome."
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 16, 2023
Assad further alleges that 4 “[a]s a result of the Air Force’s breach of contract, [he] was denied employment of which he was otherwise qualified.” ECF No. 4 ¶ 66. … But the record clearly establishes that these statements did not come from the Air Force. The record is clear.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMangi Environmental Group, Inc. v. United States
47 Fed. Cl. 10 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 31, 2000
As a minimum, the proposal must clearly provide the following: 4. … Clearly, SRI’s proposal failed to conform to the material terms and conditions of the solicitation.
Cited 12 timesPublishedGlobal Dynamics, LLC v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 5, 2018
See ECF No. 82 at 7-8; ECF No. 83 at 6. 3 Plaintiff is correct that the lost opportunity to fairly compete for an award, and the resulting lost profits, generally qualify … Defendant has clearly acted improperly in awarding the fifth sole-source contract in this instance. See ECF No. 78.
Cited 0 timesPublishedC. v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 10, 2025
MacGinnitie added that epidemiology clearly shows that epilepsy, seizures, and encephalitis are not increased after flu vaccine. Id.; Tr. 262-63, 302-04. More specifically, in response to Dr. … MacGinnitie argued that epidemiology clearly established no relationship between influenza vaccine and epilepsy, seizures, or encephalitis. Resp. Ex. C at 5, 9-10; Resp. Ex. C Tab 15; Pet. Ex. 32; Resp. Ex.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedRawson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 4, 2015
Petitioner alleged that M.R.R. suffered from Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura as a result of the Human Papillomavirus (“HPV”) and Hepatitis A vaccinations administered on August 15, 2011 and July 26, 2012. … Cr. 2010) (holding that “[w]here the claimant establishes that the cost of litigation has imposed an undue hardship and that there exists a good faith basis for the claim, it is proper for the special master to award interim
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSacramento Grazing Ass'n v. United States
96 Fed. Cl. 175 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 1, 2010
The burden of establishing jurisdiction falls upon the plaintiff. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. … Since the court has identified the subject of the aforementioned claim as a legally protected property right, the analysis turns to “whether that property has been deprived or abridged sufficiently to qualify as ‘taken.’”
Cited 4 timesPublishedUniversal Protection Service, Lp v. United States
126 Fed. Cl. 173 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 7, 2016
The Technical Evaluation Team indicated that for ABM Security Services, “[t]he NLECC proposal did not clearly demonstrate an understanding of the requirements in the 4 Statement … Rather, ABM's proposal clearly committed only the resources of ABM itself to contract performance. ...
Cited 4 timesPublishedAl-Uffi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 21, 2015
Respondent’s first objection to an interim fees award is frequently made in Vaccine Program cases,9 and is even more readily dispensed with.10 As discussed above, the Federal Circuit has clearly established that special masters … Al-Uffi’s fee petition establish, Mr.
Cited 0 timesPublishedSsi Technology, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 12, 2020
Fischer Panda is a qualified source who has a production contract with BAE in support of GCS-CRS M88A2 production program. … It’s clearly permissible. [FAR] 9.307 allows that.”). Accordingly, the Army reasonably concluded “Fischer Panda is the only approved source to have an approved FAT for this requirement.”
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna