Case law

Superior 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.

Haselrig v. United States

53 Fed. Cl. 111 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 31, 2002

provision of law, may be retained on active duty until he or she is qualified for retirement. 10 U.S.C. § 632 (a)(3); 10 U.S.C. 637(a)(5). . … A PRF form is a communication from a senior rater designed to assist promotion boards in determining those officers best qualified. AFR 36-10(C1), ¶ 1-8(a)(2).

CW 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.”).

Eco Tour Adventures, Inc. v. United States

114 Fed. Cl. 6 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 12, 2013

Cir. 2001), in which the Federal Circuit rejected an argument, virtually identical to that made by the government here, that “absent allegations of fraud or bad faith,” a responsibility determination is “immune from judicial … Thus, the record does not establish that the use of biodiesel fuel achieves precisely the same environmental benefits as an “idle free policy.”

LOVERIDGE v. United States

United 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.”)).

Textron 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

Century 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. .

Hiatt v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 19, 2025

Ezeanolue et al., “Best Practices Guidance of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP),” General Best Practice Guidelines for Immunization, https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/general-recs/downloads … This showing must be preponderantly established—not simply that it is biologically plausible a vaccine could impact the immune system in such a way that it could lead to an autoimmune demyelinating disease, but that it likely

Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United States

126 Fed. Cl. 367 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 29, 2016

Petro-Hunt appealed, arguing that the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana erred in denying its motion for trial, or in the alternative, that the Fifth Circuit’s 2004 mandate was clearly erroneous … Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. at 290, 129 S.Ct. 1547 (The Tucker Act does not create “substantive rights; [it is simply a] jurisdictional provision[] that operatefs] to waive sovereign immunity for claims premised on other sources

Caddell Construction Company v. United States

129 Fed. Cl. 383 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 17, 2016

As required, and subject to the size of the project, this is the process we establish to supplement our core team staffing requirements accordingly. … Cl. 541, 553 (2014). 14 Caddell states that it was initially given a technical rating of fail for Factor 4 Subfactor 2 because “some of the commitment dates ran into subsequent calendar years and did not clearly indicate

Strahler v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 18, 2022

If, however, you are found physically qualified for separation, any defect will be recorded[. … To refute the BCNR’s decision, a plaintiff’s evidence must be “cogent and clearly convincing[.]” Stuart v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 413, 421 (2015) (quoting Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (Fed.

Behm v. United States

68 Fed. Cl. 395 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 7, 2005

the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which … The pay plan and movement rules are clearly gender-neutral on their face.

Cottingham v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 20, 2022

Thus, the Federal Circuit held that the Special Master abused his discretion because his decision rested on the clearly erroneous finding of fact that Petitioner had produced “no evidence” to support her claim. … fees was largely based on his finding 2 that Petitioner failed to present evidence to meet Althen prong two because she did not “file a statement from a treating doctor or qualified

Holt v. United States

64 Fed. Cl. 215 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 18, 2005

Holt’s petition because she was not a qualified applicant. While Mrs. Holt challenges the Board’s jurisdictional rejection, she also seeks substantive relief. … Only a statute promising procedures to be established at a later date. Defendant has quoted from Mass. v.

Lyon v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 22, 2022

It is clearly, as articulated by the Fisher court, the lack of discretion contained in § 1201 that was the deciding factor. … such personnel and not to review and reverse decisions of other established boards favorable to such personnel.”

Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 12, 2019

As it timely submitted its capabilities statement, it qualifies as a prospective bidder for purposes of a sole- source challenge. See Digitalis, 904 F.3d at 1385. … In the Court’s view, however, Harmonia’s claims that the agency conducted market research only so that it could provide an after-the-fact justification for a decision it already made clearly sound in bad faith.

Cottingham v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 20, 2022

Thus, the Federal Circuit held that the Special Master abused his discretion because his decision rested on the clearly erroneous finding of fact that Petitioner had produced “no evidence” to support her claim. … His denial of fees was largely based on his finding that Petitioner failed to present evidence to meet Althen prong two because she did not “file a statement from a treating doctor or qualified expert indicating that the

Jaye v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 7, 2024

furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly … Steinman seeks to establish.

Persyn v. United States

35 Fed. Cl. 708 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 3, 1996

The court reserved ruling on whether two plaintiffs listed as witnesses would be qualified as expert witnesses. … Although he was listed as an expert by Austin, Britton was not qualified as an expert at trial. Persyn II, 34 Fed.Cl. at 193 .

Henderson County Drainage District No. 3 v. United States

53 Fed. Cl. 48 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 30, 2002

Defendant adds that, even if plaintiffs were able to establish the existence of a contract, the contract claim is time-barred. Id. at 4. D. … United States, 910 F.2d 815, 817 (Fed.Cir.1990)) (The six-year limitation is “ ‘an express limitation on the Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity.’”); Seldovia Native Ass’n v.