Case law

Sparton 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. .

Simeneta v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 25, 2024

Naismith explained that Campylobacter has been established as a cause of GBS established in the literature, which is not the case with Prevnar 13. Id. … Naismith evaluates the causal theory here based on the four criteria discussed in Ang et al.: (1) establishment of an epidemiological association between the infectious agent and the immune-mediated illness; (2) identification

Diaz 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.

Entergy Nuclear Fitzpatrick, LLC v. United States

101 Fed. Cl. 464 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 3, 2011

Circuit operated in excess of its jurisdiction and, specifically, without an appropriate waiver of sovereign immunity.” Id. at 673 . Accordingly, the court held that the D.C. … Clearly, the reach of the mandamus extended to costs, i.e., damages, as well as to liability. The majority decision in Nebraska Public Power was clearly sensitive to the limited reach of the D.C. Circuit’s mandamus.

360Training.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.

Robert F. Goeller and Jeanette M. Goeller v. United States

109 Fed. Cl. 534 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 20, 2013

Those statutes are not immune from the fundamental principle that controls the construction of federal statutes more generally, to wit, that “[t]he plain meaning . . . should be conclusive.” See United States v. … Palmer, 871 F.2d 1202, 1205 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890 (1989) (“[I]t is a well- established principle that where a federal criminal statute uses a common law term of established meaning without otherwise defining

RCD Cleaning Service, Inc. v. United States

97 Fed. Cl. 582 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 13, 2011

To qualify for federal contracts set aside for the HUBZone program, this requirement must be met both on the day a proposal is submitted and on the day the contract is awarded. … Some RCD employees did not meet the minimum hours-worked criteria to qualify as employees for HUBZone purposes.

Big Oak Farms, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 11, 2019

However, the fact that the takings claims of each property owner is different and that each will have to establish their own taking claim under the multi-factor test established for temporary takings in Arkansas Game and … As discussed above, because Arkansas Game and Fish establishes a multi-factor test that must be satisfied on a case-by-case basis to establish liability for a temporary taking, something more than notice that many property

SKORUPSKA v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 6, 2026

Schwartzberg on November 13, 2013, at 8 months and prior to any immunization, [N.S.] was clearly severely delayed in all domains. Id. Dr. Raymond opined that N.S. … “was severely developmental[ly] delayed prior to the immunization.” Exhibit A at 6.

Jackson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 2, 2026

This is because we could later clearly see the myelitis occurring.” Tr. 218. … 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.

JGB Enterprises, Inc. v. United States

63 Fed. Cl. 319 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 22, 2004

Accordingly, it is a waiver of sovereign immunity, and thus, must be strictly construed in favor of the Government. United States Dep’t of Energy v. … “The intended beneficiary need not be specifically or individually identified in the contract, but must fall within a class clearly intended to be benefitted thereby.” Montana, 124 F.3d at 1273 .

McCulloch v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 24, 2015

Thus, the Federal Circuit clearly considered counsel in its discussion of interim fee awards in the Vaccine Program. … Respondent’s evidence quite clearly demonstrates that Washington D.C. is one of the most expensive legal markets in the country.

Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States

50 Fed. Cl. 35 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 30, 2001

The Right to Suspend Is Qualified by the Implied Duty Not to Hinder......59 VI. … This left open the legal question of whether only amendments and revisions to existing LRMPs qualified as “agency action” within the meaning of the ESA, or whether pre-existing LRMPs also qualified as “agency action.”

Lindholm v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 9, 2020

Temporal proximity between vaccination and onset of symptoms is a necessary component in establishing causation in non-Table cases, but without more, temporal proximity alone “fails to establish a reasonable basis for a vaccine … Wilkerson’s expert report does not communicate a scientific theory by which K.E.L. allegedly suffered injuries from the DTaP vaccination, stating “an unspecified immune mechanism is most likely involved.”

Southland Corp. v. United States

33 Fed. Cl. 345 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 8, 1995

During the years 1980 and 1981, plaintiff hired numerous employees who qualified for the WIN credits. … (“Section 261(g)(2) clearly abolishes retroactive certification for all claims made after September 26, 1981.”)

John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States

57 Fed. Cl. 182 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 27, 2003

United States, 910 F.2d 815, 817 (Fed.Cir.1990)) (“The six-year statute of limitations acts as ‘an express limitation on the Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity.’ ”); Seldovia Native Ass’n v. … Thus, the court must determine when defendant had clearly and permanently physically taken plaintiffs property to identify the date of accrual.

Lawson Environmental Services, LLC v. United States

126 Fed. Cl. 233 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 7, 2016

Here, the agency used a pass/fail evaluation methodology to determine that Coastal was technically unacceptable because its personnel were not qualified. … Here, the Key Personnel technical requirement that Coastal-Enviroworks failed was clearly a traditional responsibility factor that entailed the capacity and competency to perform the contract.

Taylor v. United States

33 Fed. Cl. 54 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 5, 1995

Defendant argues that plaintiff has established no right to payment sufficient to invoke Tucker Act jurisdiction. … It should be noted that plaintiff has a heavy burden in establishing the inaccuracy of his file.

Dyncorp International LLC v. United States

113 Fed. Cl. 298 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 5, 2013

The original D&F authored by DOS, the written debriefing provided to Dyncorp on August 30, 2013, and the correspondence and filings from the current protest before GAO all presumptively qualify for inclusion in the Administrative … The latter issue is clearly not in front of us.

Broughton Lumber Co. v. United States

30 Fed. Cl. 239 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 12, 1994

the property interest purportedly taken — an expectation of deriving significant economic value from the water right through its application to a hydroelectric power generator — is at this point too conjectural a usage to qualify … The twin purposes of the Gorge Act are: (1) to establish a national scenic area to protect and provide for the enhancement of the scenic, cultural, recreational, and natural resources of the Columbia River Gorge; and (2)