Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
0.76s
United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 5, 2018
The language of the relevant statute, regulation, Department of Defense Instruction, and the reemployed annuitant request documentation clearly indicate that the reemployed annuitant position, which plaintiff sought to obtain … Plaintiff contends that "the element of 'acceptance and offer' for the expressed [sic] contract was established" when she complied with Dr.
Cited 0 timesPublishedNAVAJO NATION v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 13, 2025
This statutory language cannot be read to suggest that the individual relocatees themselves have a trust relationship with the United States; instead, it clearly indicates that the Nation is the beneficiary and has the requisite … Cl. 521 (2004), “to support their contention that they qualified as an ‘identifiable group’” under the Indian Tucker Act. Id. at 167.
Cited 0 timesPublished22nd Century Technologies, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 19, 2021
The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, Inc. v. United States, 805 F.3d 1082, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2015). … Applying these standards, the court concludes that 22nd Century’s challenge is clearly made in connection with the issuance of a task order and is therefore barred by FASA.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMosley v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 15, 2014
In March 2008, petitioner qualified for Social Security Disability Income (“SSDI”) benefits. Med. recs. Ex. 23, at 1. On September 9, 2008, petitioner saw Dr. … However, a judge on the Court of Federal Claims reversed the special master’s dismissal, concluding that petitioner had established a prima facie case.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCeres Environmental Services, Inc. v. United States
52 Fed. Cl. 23 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 15, 2002
Pursuant to the Small Business Act, Congress has conferred responsibility for establishing which entities qualify as small business concerns, as well for making particular size assessments, upon the Small Business Administration … The instant solicitation does not specifically call for a great deal of heavy equipment, and the Statement of Work clearly requires merely the pickup, removal and disposal of brush, debris and rubbish.
Cited 29 timesPublishedAlion Science & Technology Corp. v. United States
69 Fed. Cl. 14 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 2, 2005
The first was that the period between September and December 2005 was “time-critical,” with an immediate need for qualified personnel. Id. at 4 . … The second was that during this “time-critical” period, AES-ITT was the only source with qualified personnel which DSO could use to perform the work described in the contract. Id. at 3-4 .
Cited 12 timesPublished32 Fed. Cl. 689 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 8, 1995
Alaska has failed to clearly identify these “other factors” to the court, and we cannot divine what they may be. … As counsel clearly admits in plaintiffs opposition brief, “[t]he State could predict that the export ban might harm it____” (Pl.Opp.Br. at 26).
Cited 107 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 22, 2015
“While a 959 gig plaintiff is heici it: a less stririgeni standard than that of a plaintiff represented by an attorney, the: 311:; g plaintiff, naverthaiess, bears the burden 3f establishing the Caurt‘s jurisdiaiiori by a … Bullock’s income level might qualify him for in forma pauperis relief, as discussed above, his complaint is being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED.
Cited 0 timesPublishedElectronic On-Ramp, Inc. v. United States
104 Fed. Cl. 151 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 28, 2012
Was EOR’s Paper Proposal Late or Does it Qualify for an Exception to the General Rule? … Although EOR’s paper proposal was received prior to the submission deadline, it will not qualify for the exception unless it also was “under the Government’s control.” 2.
Cited 19 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 22, 2015
“While a 959 gig plaintiff is heici it: a less stririgeni standard than that of a plaintiff represented by an attorney, the: 311:; g plaintiff, naverthaiess, bears the burden 3f establishing the Caurt‘s jurisdiaiiori by a … Bullock’s income level might qualify him for in forma pauperis relief, as discussed above, his complaint is being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · May 15, 2025
July 11, 2011) (“The lack of privity impacts the lack of waiver of sovereign immunity, which is available pursuant to the Tucker Act.”). … Cir. 1990) (The Federal Circuit has found that, “Clearly, federal expenditures would be wholly and invoice statements furnished by Plaintiff fail to mention HUD. Compl. Ex. A; Compl. Ex. B; Compl. Ex.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished46 Fed. Cl. 762 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 31, 2000
The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Federal Claims is limited “to the metes and bounds of the United States’ consent to be sued in its waiver of [sovereign] immunity.” RHI Holdings, Inc. v. … Clearly, plaintiff may not estop the government from asserting any valid defense to plaintiff's claim for interest on the basis of this gratuitous offer. See OPM v.
Cited 17 timesPublishedBekiaris v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 10, 2018
Ex. 3, at 5-7, and immunization records, id. at 4. On February 10, 2015, Ms. Bekiaris provided dermatological records from January 2015. Id. Ex. 4. In July 2015, Ms. … Abuse of discretion exists when the “court’s decision is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful,” when based upon legal error, or when the findings are clearly erroneous or without rational support in the record.
Cited 0 timesPublishedPhelan v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 18, 2024
Qualified students may be those who have a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” … The authors found there was “insufficient evidence to clearly propose any treatment for PANDAS and related disorders.” Id. at 13.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 1, 2020
The letter would “clearly indicate that the application ha[d] been selected for enrollment and that NRCS [wa]s making an offer to purchase the easement for the compensation amount indicated on the [form] provided with the … This court has held that promissory estoppel “requires the court to find an implied-in-law contract, a claim for which the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity.”5 Steinberg v. United States, 90 Fed.
Cited 0 timesPublishedSmart Business Machines v. United States
72 Fed. Cl. 706 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 9, 2006
To the extent that SBM’s complaint can be read to state that SBM’s “performance” established a contract with the government, that claim also fails. … SBM then goes on to suggest that its performance qualified as “substantial performance.”
Cited 3 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 19, 2025
“The established rule . . . is that equity follows the law, . . . … ‘that, wherever the rights or the situation of parties are clearly defined and established by law, equity has no power to change or unsettle those rights or that situation.’” Hedges v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCubic Defense Systems, Inc. v. United States
45 Fed. Cl. 450 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 3, 1999
Cubic, in particular, repeatedly objected that the Air Force approach would permit marginally qualified bidders into the competition. … Clearly, under the regulation all contacts between government and bidder are not “discussions.”
Cited 96 timesPublishedO'Connor v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 17, 2014
Anderson, who is identified as a retired behavioral specialist, asserted only that when JR "started the hep immunizations, his development started to change. .. … Russell’s letter did not indicate the physician’s view that a vaccine or vaccines caused JR’s conditions.3 On January 30, 2013, l issued an Order instructing Petitioner to file the expert report of a qualified medical doctor
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNortheastern Pennsylvania Shippers Cooperative ass'n v. United States
39 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,713 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 20, 1994
If such negotiated accesso-rial service charges, when combined with the alternate base rate produce lower charges, the primary carrier will be routed via the low cost alternate Clearly the services at issue are “services … United States, 11 Cl.Ct. 837, 849-52 (1987) (holding that general waiver of sovereign immunity is not enough to hold United States liable for interest; interest payments must be expressly provided for by statute.). .
Cited 6 timesPublished
Ask Donna