Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
1.49s
Bello v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 2, 2021
His impression, however, was “complex encephalopathy with history of developmental regression in the context of immunizations and febrile illness.” Id. at 11. … Falchek’s embrace of encephalopathy “in the context of immunizations” as a diagnostic explanation for this developmental loss. Id. at 4; Ex. 5 at 9, 11.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCarahsoft Technology Corp. v. United States
86 Fed. Cl. 325 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 12, 2009
, well qualified, best qualified, and which persons were interviewed, not selected or selected, and those who declined job offers or who were hired.” … However, plaintiff ignores the court’s qualifying language.
Cited 43 timesPublishedBello v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 2, 2021
His impression, however, was “complex encephalopathy with history of developmental regression in the context of immunizations and febrile illness.” Id. at 11. … Falchek’s embrace of encephalopathy “in the context of immunizations” as a diagnostic explanation for this developmental loss. Id. at 4; Ex. 5 at 9, 11.
Cited 0 timesPublishedLaSalle Talman Bank, F.S.B. v. United States
45 Fed. Cl. 64 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 1999
It had to be presumed, however, that Taiman clearly retained the balance of its outstanding supervisory goodwill—which derived from the 1982 agreements. … For example, Taiman had approximately $83 million of qualifying supervisory goodwill at the end of 1989.
Reversed on other grounds by Lasalle Talman Bank, F.S.B. v. United States, Defendant-Cross, 317 F.3d 1363 (2003)Cited 43 timesPublishedWeeks Marine, Inc. v. United States
79 Fed. Cl. 22 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 1, 2007
Weeks has established the first element for injunctive relief in convincing fashion. B. Weeks Will Suffer Irreparable Harm. … To the extent that the agency may select fewer than all qualified offerors, it effectively will create a “closed shop” environment that is anti-competitive.
Reversed in part, on other grounds by Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (2009)Cited 25 timesPublished87 Fed. Cl. 172 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 28, 2009
DeBatto “bears the burden of establishing by ‘cogent and clearly convincing evidence’ ” that the Army’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Colon v. … The Tucker Act serves as a waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity for certain claims that “ ‘can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the [fjederal [gjovernment for the damage sustained.’”
Cited 4 timesPublishedFlorida Power & Light Co. v. United States
49 Fed. Cl. 656 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 28, 2001
The mandate of the Atomic Energy Act clearly required prices set “on a basis of recovery of the Government’s costs over a reasonable period of time.” … Tucker was qualified as an expert in accounting, in the cost and pricing of government contracts, and in damages. Mr. Tucker was not qualified as an expert in the application of DOE’s pricing criteria. .
Cited 3 timesPublishedSt. Matthew Publishing, Inc. v. United States
41 Fed. Cl. 142 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 16, 1998
requests reveals that, for the most part, they request information regarding matters that are irrelevant, or that has already been provided, or merely seek defendant’s agreement to legal or rhetorical principles that defendant clearly … The court in Animal Protection also *146 noted that the Congressional committee report intended the courts to follow the Tax Court rules for declaratory judgment suits as to qualifying retirement plans under I.R.Code § 7476
Cited 12 timesPublishedGlenn Defense Marine (Asia) PTE, Ltd. v. United States
97 Fed. Cl. 311 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 1, 2011
Could the RFP have been drafted more clearly? Probably. … Internal agency documents, such as a source selection plan, of course, do not by themselves establish legally-enforceable rights. See Allied Tech. Group, Inc. v.
Cited 10 timesPublishedEnglobal Government Services, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 12, 2022
The Court has considered the allegations in EGS’s complaint and concludes that EGS qualifies as an interested party with respect to the procurement at issue. … This case is clearly distinguishable on the grounds that DLA never sought FPRs in Amendment 0007 or thereafter.
Cited 0 timesPublished30 Fed. Cl. 28 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 12, 1993
Further, it does not comply with the procedure established in AR 635-100, paragraph 3-73f. … In his March 25, 1993, motion, plaintiff contends that on January 22, 1991, he qualified for the “sanctuary” protection afforded by 10 U.S.C. § 1163 (d).
Reversed on other grounds by Sheridon H. Groves v. United States, 47 F.3d 1140 (1995)Cited 4 timesPublishedIntegral Consulting Services, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 13, 2018
Integral indicated on the Scoring Worksheet that those projects involved qualifying PSCs with some of the projects also meeting the requirements for certain bonus factors. Id. at 497-98. … 2018, the parties shall file a joint status report indicating their agreement with the proposed redactions, attaching a copy of those pages of the court’s ruling containing proposed redactions, with all proposed redactions clearly
Cited 0 timesPublishedWestinghouse Hanford Co. v. United States
47 Fed. Cl. 665 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 14, 2000
On May 26, 1994, DOE’s general support services contractor, MACTEC, issued a report stating that the L-102 CRP did not qualify for EC-CEL credit because the baseline was not validated. … Both clearly thought the review of costs would occur after the work on the project was completed.
Cited 1 timesPublishedUnited International Investigative Services, Inc. v. United States
42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,336 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 7, 1998
court must determine whether defendant’s actions toward plaintiff were: (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … This was clearly improper. It circumvented the purpose of the TEB’s function to collectively assess the relative worth of each offeror’s technical proposal and arrive at a consensus score.
Cited 80 timesPublished41 Fed. Cl. 585 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 20, 1998
That portion of the solicitations, H.26, provides that [deductions ... will be made for services that have been cited as not clearly meeting the standards set forth in the ... … The quoted statement does not qualify any purported commitment to staff an equipment mechanic at each lock and dam.
Cited 12 timesPublishedTravelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. United States
75 Fed. Cl. 696 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 19, 2007
For instance, it is a well-established the rule of statutory construction that it is only through context that language establishes a common and shared meaning. See Pennington v. … In the instant case, unlike Stuyvesant, the contract did not include any qualifying lan *722 guage.
Cited 22 timesPublished70 Fed. Cl. 536 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 25, 2006
The Army determined that he was “qualified for retirement.” A.R. vol. II, 92-93. Mr. … As a general rule in the military disability area, the court is bound by the correction board decision unless the plaintiff establishes “by cogent and clearly convincing evidence that the [military’s] decision was arbitrary
Cited 37 timesPublishedSparton Corp. v. United States
89 Fed. Cl. 190 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 10, 2009
Boyle’s guess does not clearly and convincingly establish that the report was communicated or “offered” to the Navy. … Nor does the Government argue in its posttrial briefing that this report qualifies as prior art. .
Cited 0 timesPublishedDiaz v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 5, 2023
Both are signed by hand by the administering immunizer; however the signature is illegible. Id. Both are also signed by hand by Petitioner. Id. … The sole mention of a left shoulder administration situs is “the computer-generated immunization history provided by CVS Pharmacy.” Br. at *7.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished360Training.com, Inc. v. United States
106 Fed. Cl. 177 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 3, 2012
The Court agrees with the Government that “clearly” the Level 1 Highlights is not the controlling evaluation and that “clearly” *196 it is not the final Level 1 evaluation. … The Court also agrees that “clearly” the agency changed its mind following a subsequent evaluation.
Cited 11 timesPublished
Ask Donna