Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
0.45s
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 28, 2022
A plaintiff has the burden to establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Brandt v. United States, 710 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013). … Biestek clearly shows that United Airlines paid the FICA taxes on his behalf at the time of his retirement as required by IRS regulations.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedKottenstette v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 27, 2017
Zempel accepts that vaccination provokes an immune response, he does not accept that this provoked immune response is a risk factor for causing infantile spasms. Id. Dr. … The Vaccine Act established a federal “compensation program” under which awards are to be “made to vaccine-injured persons quickly, easily, and with certainty and generosity.”
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMenominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States
39 Fed. Cl. 441 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 30, 1997
The reservation was established "for the purpose of weaning [the Indians] from their wandering habits.” Id. at 344 . . … An immunization program was included. The BIA also provided support for sufferers of tuberculosis by paying for sanitarium care and supporting members of the family.
Cited 7 timesPublishedThornton v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 3, 2025
Exercise “changes the immune response” and also promotes the immune response to vaccination. Tr. 84-86. … Gershwin states that “the underlying mechanisms of [exertional rhabdomyolysis] have not been clearly established among health professionals or 17 sports medicine personnel.”
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMichalovic Crawley v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 2, 2021
Because plaintiffs have not established that equitable tolling is appropriate in these cases, plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. I. … The government responds that, as an initial matter, equitable tolling is unavailable in FLSA cases against the federal government because the “FLSA statute of limitations is an element of the waiver of sovereign immunity
Cited 0 timesPublished123 Fed. Cl. 430 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 25, 2015
U.S.C. § 10903 or a notice of exemption under 49 U.S.C. § 10502 and 49 C.F.R. § 1152.50. 8 If a railroad proposes abandonment, a state, political subdivision, or qualified … To the contrary, Oregon law clearly states that rail traffic and pedestrian or cycling uses within the same space are incompatible.
Cited 4 timesPublished52 Fed. Cl. 599 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 31, 2002
There are, however, provisions of the contract which indirectly, but clearly, reference Centex. … issue, sell, renew, or guarantee debt securities and assume debt in the normal course of their respective business activities without prior written approval of the FSLIC; provided that for as long as Centex or CTX fail to qualify
Cited 7 timesPublished64 Fed. Cl. 733 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 13, 2005
Thus, the court held that Claudia’s sale of Happy Valley to Parker Development did not qualify for nonreeognition of gain treatment pursuant to Section 1041. *739 Turning its attention to Claudia’s claim that she and Bert … Our review of the supporting documentation provided by the plaintiffs to substantiate their claim for costs reveals that they failed to clearly apportion costs between the 1997 and 1998 claims.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTelenor Satellite Services, Inc. v. United States
71 Fed. Cl. 114 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 2, 2006
This provision of the Tucker Act, coupled with a properly-alleged Government contract, satisfies the federal Government’s waiver of sovereign immunity, giving this Court jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claim. … The Secretary of State clearly has the authority to bind the Government in contract in order to fulfill the duties of the Department, as determined by the President of the United States. See 22 U.S.C. § 2656 .
Cited 33 timesPublishedNight Vision Corp. v. United States
68 Fed. Cl. 368 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 24, 2005
Nevertheless, this same provision requires that a contractor clearly mark data with a prescribed legend that the contractor wishes to protect from disclosure. Id. § 252.227-7018(f). … To establish the existence of an oral, implied-in-fact contract, a plaintiff has the burden of proffering evidence establishing four criteria, the very same criteria needed to demonstrate an express contract: (1) mutuality
Cited 39 timesPublishedWilliams v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 10, 2022
Thomas Wynn contended that “inflammatory mediators clearly play a role in both the initiation and progression of some forms of pulmonary fibrosis.” Id. at 3. Dr. … Gershwin was qualified as an expert in immunology, and he provided a brief overview of the immune system and “two major types of immunity.” Tr. 103:25, 104:1–2. The innate system, Dr.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedOverseas Thread Industries, Ltd. v. United States
48 Fed. Cl. 221 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 9, 2000
The time for filing in § 6012 is established by I.R.C. § 6072. … OTI clearly was a taxable foreign entity, unlike MNOPF.
Cited 2 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 26, 2024
We said, Mother Nature clearly doesn’t like it up there. We’ll take the funds and do things on the industrial park instead.”)). … We said, Mother Nature clearly doesn’t like it up there. We’ll take the funds and do things on the industrial park instead.”)).
Cited 0 timesPublishedKukreja v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 14, 2017
Hourly Rates An attorney’s reasonable hourly rate is determined by the “forum rule,” which applies the hourly rate paid to similarly qualified attorneys in the forum in which the relevant court sits (Washington, … Even though the Act clearly allows the recovery of fees by prevailing claimants, special masters still possess the discretion to modify the sum awarded.
Cited 0 timesPublishedSuperior Optical Labs, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 2, 2021
Second, the word submittal clearly refers to the entire proposal to be submitted. It is in the singular because there is only one proposal, although it includes two sample sets. … The Balance of the Hardships Favors Plaintiff The irreparable harm to plaintiff established, we consider the balance of harms.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOsage Tribe of Indians v. United States
72 Fed. Cl. 629 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 21, 2006
Whether the Osage Agency Properly Interpreted the Regulations Establishing Royalty Value 1. … Atlantic Richfield clearly refused to offer the bonus or pay the additional royalty on the bonus for producers from whom it purchased oil.
Cited 15 timesPublishedCW Government Travel, Inc. v. United States
63 Fed. Cl. 369 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 30, 2004
Compl. at 7, ¶ 30; see also Contract at 23, ¶ 1.3.1 (requiring Carlson to employ “capable and qualified” personnel). … fact, the very fact that they have now issued a draft of such a worldwide contract also clearly establishes that 1.6.7 does not apply to the MEPS.”).
Cited 20 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 26, 2020
That gap is too much in light of the court’s obligation to narrowly construe the Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity. … Second, plaintiffs have not asserted claims that qualify as both direct and derivative based on the dual-nature exception.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCentury Exploration New Orleans, Inc. v. United States
103 Fed. Cl. 70 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 24, 2012
In that ease, Congress enacted legislation that repudiated the government’s obligation to make payments to veterans under earlier insurance contracts and also withdrew its waiver of sovereign immunity from suits related to … But it does undermine the government’s assertion that plaintiffs’ position in this case is clearly foreclosed by this court’s precedent. .
Cited 12 timesPublishedTextron Aviation Defense LLC v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 12, 2022
Cir. 2002) (“Although characterized as a statute of limitations, the filing period[ ] established by . . . the CDA [is] ‘jurisdictional in nature,’ for [it] operate[s] as [a] limit[ ] on the waiver of sovereign immunity by … Indeed, an REA specifically designed to trigger negotiations may itself qualify as a proper CDA claim; and, even if an REA is missing elements necessary to qualify as a proper CDA claim, that does not stop the statute of
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna