Case law

Platinum Services, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 25, 2025

Gmyr is not qualified to calculate the value of Platinum’s accessorial services, because although Mr. … Gmyr is qualified to testify on the fair market value of accessorial services performed by Platinum. Mr.

Giesbrecht v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 30, 2023

Giesbrecht’s presentation: “It is highly likely that petitioner has degenerative arthritis (osteoarthritis (OA)) in both his lumbar spine and his cervical spine, given his pre-vaccinal problems with neck pain and his clearly … Giesbrecht described the theory he was advancing as “The mechanism of the PMR would be the generation of an innate immune response involving cytokine production.” Pet’r’s Br. at 7, quoting Exhibit 8 at 4.

Cmi Management, Inc v. United States

115 Fed. Cl. 276 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 20, 2014

An examination of CMI’s technical proposal reveals that CMI often made reference to its training program without using the acronym RMT as a qualifier. … But, CMI clearly acknowledged in its proposal an awareness that those practices had been implemented previously. AR 631–32.

Graves ex rel. Estate of Graves v. Secretary of the Dept. of Health & Human Services

109 Fed. Cl. 579 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 25, 2013

Consequently, Hayley’s estate does not qualify for an award at the highest amount as the Graveses have requested. *584 Id. at *3 (emphasis supplied) (awarding $60,000). … Further, it must be kept in mind that the $250,000 maximum was established in the context of a Program in which it was clearly anticipated that many if not most claimants would be individuals with severe brain damage allegedly

Allison v. United States

80 Fed. Cl. 568 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 27, 2008

But that court resisted adopting a blanket immunity from negligence *586 when a taxpayer relies on an investment adviser. … Investment in Masters was limited to "qualified investors." Pis.’ Ex. 1 at 1.

Fluor Enterprises, Inc. v. United States

64 Fed. Cl. 461 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 24, 2005

Clearly, then, these issues are ones of statutory interpretation and application of law to fact. … Fluor is not immune from these deficiencies.

J. J. Powell, Inc. v. United States

125 Fed. Cl. 73 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 4, 2016

The regulations that clearly govern refund claims submitted by Ultimate Vendors for excise taxes on gasoline and diesel, Treas. … There is no such mandate for compliance with IRS publications and advice. 10 / The evidence in the record clearly establishes that Powell’s cardlock locations were operated through use of a fueling card,

National Treasury Employees Union v. United States

54 Fed. Cl. 791 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 20, 2002

OPM, 47 M.S.P.R. 293 (1991) (finding no waiver of sovereign immunity for payment of interest on delayed retirement benefits). … Here, the notice provided to the class was clearly adequate.

Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. United States

60 Fed. Cl. 639 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 21, 2004

“If a reasonable probability of damage can be clearly established, uncertainty as to the amount will not preclude recovery____” Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. v. Barram, 226 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed.Cir.2000) (quoting Locke v. … The past and future costs that fall into the "qualified” time period are itemized below. The total is $6,316,000.

Phoenix Air Group, Inc. v. United States

46 Fed. Cl. 90 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 18, 2000

Under the second alternative, the Contracting Officer can direct the contractor to establish other permanent bases. … This is clearly set forth in contract schedule subsection C, entitled “COST-REIMBURSABLE CLINS.”

Schlumberger Technology Corp. & Subsidiaries v. United States

55 Fed. Cl. 203 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 31, 2003

The court found that plaintiff “clearly established that an important aspect of the design of these job tankers is to function as construction equipment on the job site,” but also found that the highway transportation function … In light of these facts, the court finds that plaintiffs trucks do not qualify under the off-highway use exception.

Lohman v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 29, 2021

Cir. 1993) (“Interest may not be recovered against the government in the absence of an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity for that purpose.”); RuizGarcia v. United States, 54 Fed. … The first item of data does little to establish their burden.

Youngdale & Sons Construction Co. v. United States

38 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,467 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 15, 1993

Thus, the court is thereby clearly justified in holding that it is more probable than not that plaintiff fails to establish the facts which it purports to convey. … Sims testified that different qualified geologists may classify the same material in different terms and still be correct. Tr. 1355. .

Yanko v. United States

127 Fed. Cl. 682 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 12, 2016

The Government does not dispute that part-time GS and WG workers qualify as employees under 5 U.S.C. § 5546(b), the holiday premium pay statute. Gov’t Mot. at 4 (citing Fathauer v. United States, 566 F.3d 1352 (Fed. … See Fathauer, 566 F.3d at 1357 (“[T]he word ‘employee’ clearly includes those who work part time.”).

Centex Corp. v. United States

48 Fed. Cl. 625 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 7, 2001

First, most FSLIC-assisted acquisitions will qualify as a tax-free reorganization under section 368(a)(1)(G) of the Code. … There is no dispute here that §§ 165, 166, and 593 clearly provide deductions for tax losses.

Xtra Lease, Inc. v. United States

50 Fed. Cl. 612 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 17, 2001

It emphasized that the ADRA clearly “made the APA standard of review applicable to all bid protest actions.” 9 Id. at 1300. … It also has not established that the agency’s decision “had no rational basis.” Id.

Parcel 49C Ltd. Partnership v. United States

130 Fed. Cl. 109 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2016

But, it is also well established that supplementation of the administrative record with' matters that address the legal issues before the Court is not appropriate. Id. … First, contrary to Parcel 49C’s contentions in this case, the RLP clearly requires that all offerors, including Parcel 49C, provide NEPA documentation to be eligible for award of the FCC Lease.

Watts-Healy Tibbitts A JV v. United States

81 Fed. Cl. 655 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 25, 2008

Found within this regulation is a clause that states “[ojffers from firms that do not qualify as United States firms will be evaluated by adding twenty percent to the offer.” DFARS 252.236- 7010. … Offers from firms that do not qualify as United States firms will be evaluated by adding 20 percent to the offer. (c) Status. The offeror _ is _ not a United States firm.

Kl3, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 12, 2025

Here, all the Court has to judge KL3’s standing are the assertions that KL3 is “qualified to perform the services,” “would be a prospective offeror,” and that “KL3 could complete for contract(s).” ECF No. 46 ¶ 11. … But this was a sole-source award—and other than determining that KL3 was not capable of performing the ITMS requirement in response to an SSN (which clearly does not help KL3’s efforts to establish standing), Tab 14 at AR

Phoenix Management, Inc. v. United States

107 Fed. Cl. 58 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 9, 2012

a qualified bid. … Although “proposed staff member” is not clearly defined in the Solicitation, this term has at least one implication as a matter of law.