Case law

Cooley v. United States

76 Fed. Cl. 549 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 25, 2007

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (abrogating aspects of Scheuer pertaining to the scope of qualified immunity of executive officials), and may consider “evidentiary matters outside the pleadings … “fixed the amount of the reward [for the informant] ... by establishing [through a publication] how the IRS would calculate it”); Griffin, 215 Ct.Cl. at 714 (“[I]mplied contract ... required [the head of the agency] to establish

Joseph v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 31, 2025

Standard of Review This Court’s statutorily prescribed jurisdiction to adjudicate claims and grant relief requires an affirmative waiver of sovereign immunity. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976). … Nevertheless, her obligation to present preponderant evidence establishing jurisdiction remains. II.

MG Altus Apache Co. v. United States

111 Fed. Cl. 425 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 30, 2013

Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the responsibility determination was arbitrary and capricious. Impre-sa, 238 F.3d at 1337 . … Although MG EMA attempted to improve its performance and did implement some corrective action, the record clearly establishes that MG EMA had significant lapses in its required performance under the HNT contract.

Saliense Consulting LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 23, 2025

feasibility of the roles, the responsibilities of the quoter’s team, how their management approach described day-to-day operations, and whether the quotation demonstrated the offeror’s ability to recruit, hire, train, and retain qualified … See Tab 15a at AR 728 (requiring resumes contain an “overview of duties” and “clearly demonstrate the proposed personnel meet the key personnel minimum qualifications”).

Western Shoshone Identifiable Group v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 13, 2019

clearly establish fiduciary obligations of the Government” in some areas. Mitchell II, supra, at 226, 103 S. Ct. 2961; see also United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 475, 123 S. … Starks, securities with a maturity between five and ten years is “between what’s clearly intermediate and what’s clearly long term.”

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

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 26, 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 … As interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, the Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity to allow jurisdiction over claims against the United States (1) founded on an express or implied contract with the United States,

Plaut v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 12, 2026

There clearly was ample objective evidence in this record unsupportive of a critical SIRVA element. … But reasonable basis has not been established here.

Midnight v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 21, 2022

Midnight reported low-grade fevers since her immunizations at the beginning of the month and a high fever of 102 degrees the previous night. Exhibit 24 at 32. … White that “shortly after receiving recent immunizations,” she had a new headache and fever. Exhibit 4 at 24-26. Ms.

Nelson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 3, 2025

He added that the first trigger (the flu vaccine in Petitioner’s case) primes the immune system, and the second (“possible” C. jejuni “or other infection”) “results in immune activation resulting in GBS. Id. … In attempting to establish entitlement to a Vaccine Program award of compensation for a non-Table claim, a petitioner must satisfy all three of the elements established by the Federal Circuit in Althen.

St. Bernard Parish Government v. United States

121 Fed. Cl. 687 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 1, 2015

In addition, the District Court held that those actions: (1) were not subject to the Flood Control Act immunity; (2) did not satisfy the “due care” exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity; and (3) did not satisfy the … See id. at 399 (“The district court’s careful attention to the law . . . allow us to uphold its expansive ruling in full, excepting our minor restatement of FCA immunity.”).

4dd Holdings, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 20, 2022

We have already established, however, that an implied-in-fact license does not exist. … This was enough in both cases to qualify the companies as owners of copies of software. Krause, 402 F.3d at 124–25; Softech, 761 F. Supp. 2d at 373–74.

Hawaiian Dredging Construction Co. v. United States

59 Fed. Cl. 305 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 9, 2004

Plaintiffs proof should establish that its “chance of securing the award ... … The usual rule is that mere loss of money does not qualify as irreparable harm if the party can be made whole through money damages when the claim is resolved on the merits.

Prescott v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 29, 2020

petitioner”), filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“Vaccine Program or Program).2 Petitioner alleges that she suffered vaccine induced systemic inflammatory response to immunization … 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

Peters v. United States

28 Fed. Cl. 162 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 27, 1993

The regulation did provide an exception for individuals "clearly demonstratfing] the ability to control [their] weight through satisfactory weight loss” even if those individuals exceeded the maximum allowable weight after … The government based its argument on the doctrines of sovereign immunity and separation of powers. Id. . We also note that the separation of powers principles referred to in OPM v.

Iap Worldwide Services, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 25, 2022

that a district court “is not required to set aside every unlawful agency action,” but rather “[t]he court’s decision to grant or deny injunctive or 12 In contrast to the Tucker Act, “the APA generally waives sovereign immunity … In other words, at some point, “[f]or the legal error identified . . . , vacatur is clearly warranted.” Long Island Power Auth. v. FERC, 27 F.4th 705, 717 (D.C.

Viscontini v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

103 Fed. Cl. 600 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 28, 2012

His new theory was that Crohn’s disease occurs when a person with a deficient immune system and a genetic predisposition to developing Crohn’s confronts an environmental trigger (“environmental-trigger theory”). … Once the special master determined both experts were highly qualified and reliable, there was no reason for him to give any additional weight to the background or demeanor of the government’s expert.”). 2.

Space Mark, Inc. v. United States

45 Fed. Cl. 267 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 9, 1999

This decision was reached after reviewing the qualifications of the 13 employees to determine the positions on the base for which they qualified.... … The MEO is not the existing in-house organization, but the organization the agency would establish if it were competing for the work.

Stuart v. United States

123 Fed. Cl. 413 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 25, 2015

Luken: MEDPROS is a web-based system developed by the Army Medical Department (“AMEDD”) to track all immunization, medical readiness, and deployability data for all soldiers and Department … As such, to successfully challenge a decision by the ABCMR, a plaintiff must prove by “cogent and clearly convincing evidence” that the decision is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or contrary to

Ansley Walk Condominium Association, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 2, 2019

Although the Tucker Act explicitly waives the sovereign immunity of the United States against such claims, it “does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages.” … This language suggests an established relationship between the grantor and the railroad, whereby Mr.

Ridenour v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 26, 2026

Clearly Defined Sensory Level After reviewing Mr. Ridenour’s medical records, Dr. Lancaster opined in his first report that “[t]here is no clearly defined sensory level.” Exhibit B at 10. … Souayah has not addressed whether the clearly defined sensory level should persist, nor has he addressed the treatment records that fail to show any other doctor documenting a clearly defined sensory level.