Case law

Santa Fe Pacific Railroad v. United States

48 Fed. Cl. 520 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 11, 2001

To qualify for these new rates, however, the railroads had to surrender certain rights to grant lands that were not patented. Id. at § 321(b). … Defendant raises several arguments directed at establishing that Santa Fe long ago divested itself of the property interests in question.

Universal Marine Company, K.S.C. v. United States

120 Fed. Cl. 240 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 10, 2015

The line next to FAR 52.222-17 (Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers), however, was not checked. AR Tab 15, at 103. … Although Universal Marine cited no precedent in support of its argument, Attachment 0005 clearly states that offerors without relevant past performance will receive an “unknown” determination that translates to an “Acceptable

M.E.S., Inc. v. United States

104 Fed. Cl. 620 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 23, 2012

The burden of establishing jurisdiction falls on the plaintiff. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. … Our precedents clearly establish that only controversies in the former category may be removed from Article III courts and delegated to legislative courts or administrative agencies for their determination.”

Land Shark Shredding, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 21, 2019

The tiers of cascading preferred business types are clearly delineated, beginning with SDVOSBs, then veteran-owned small businesses (VOSBs), then all other small businesses, then all other businesses. Id. … Although both entities were considered to be qualified to perform the required services, SafeGuard’s proposal was determined to be the “most advantageous to the Government.” Id.

Paalan v. United States

51 Fed. Cl. 738 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 4, 2002

Pro se litigants are not immune from laws and rules of procedure simply on the basis of their pro se status. See, e.g., Constant v. United States, 929 F.2d 654 (Fed.Cir.1991). 2. … Claims did state: Assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff has a claim under the Military Claims Act against the Government on the basis of his active duty service and his civilian employment, the act, as we have said before, clearly

OTI America, Inc. v. United States

68 Fed. Cl. 646 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2005

The Solicitation “established a competition among qualifying offerors” based upon “multiple [identically-issued] contracts, each containing sequential qualifying steps, for development of an electronic passport, preparation … Similarly, the Federal Acquisition Regulations ("FAR”) require that ”[a]ll factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be stated clearly in the solicitation.” 48

Dougherty v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 6, 2026

CRPS starts with a triggering event from an injury, surgery, or trauma, which causes activation of the peripheral immune system. Id. … I informed Petitioner that she had not clearly pled a specific injury. Also, the expert reports filed by Petitioner were not from qualified experts in rheumatologic, allergic, autoimmune, or neurologic diseases.

Abou-El-Seoud v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 28, 2018

Therefore, an employee who “clearly meets the criteria for exemption must be designated FLSA exempt. … And, even if Plaintiff or other witnesses testified that she regularly worked after 3:30 p.m., that does not establish that Plaintiff was performing work that qualified as compensable overtime.

Boyce v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 31, 2023

and clearly have demonstrated the potential for full military careers. 2.2. … Commanders will clearly state specific reasons for all withholding actions.

Gulley v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 19, 2020

As a threshold matter, “[a]bsent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). … Gulley clearly challenges the validity of the government’s action in alleging that “defendants . . . unfairly, unjustly, [and] injuriously . . . are actually taking” his SSDI payments “for the purpose of cheating or defrauding

Dougherty v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 21, 2019

There is not a preponderance of evidence demonstrating that petitioner's GBS is I due to a factor unrelated to her immunization. Pagel of 5  6. … There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the parties hereto to make any payment or do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated and clearly agreed to.

P & K Contracting, Inc. v. United States

108 Fed. Cl. 380 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 21, 2012

However, as established above P & K’s initial bid factored in an artificially low cost. … Clearly, plaintiff has the burden to establish that the contract is other than what it says it is, and its defensive observation that defendant did not establish that plaintiff cannot prove its ease is simply wrong.

Myers v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 4, 2025

Gans has cared for hundreds of infants and children with infections and has been involved with disease prevention through mitigation and immunizations. Gans Rep at 1. … But although he is generally qualified in the areas of rheumatology and immunology, and while he has (at least by his own account) treated patients with rhabdo, he lacks demonstrated expertise specific to the study of rhabdo

Fifth Third Bank v. United States

52 Fed. Cl. 264 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 12, 2002

These facts do not establish, as a matter of law, that the Government manifested its intent to enter into a binding contract with plaintiff. … R-31b simply describes, and does not purport to qualify, then-existing GAAP.

Vogler v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 16, 2014

Vaccine Act Six Month Requirement It is well established in the Vaccine Court that in order to qualify for a compensation award, a petitioner must have suffered from the alleged injury for more than six months after receiving … CONCLUSION The record clearly indicates that Mr. Vogler experienced a significant illness, and I have the greatest of sympathies for his suffering.

SDS International v. United States

48 Fed. Cl. 759 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 2, 2001

The record establishes that plaintiff proposed three full-time instructors, one part-time instructor who would spend 50% of his time on CAT tasks, and one site manager who would spend 60% of his time on CAT tasks. … Plaintiff argues that this was “clearly unreasonable,” since the site manager that it proposed to hire had been an exchange pilot for the GAF and spoke German fluently. PL Opp. at 19.

M. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

133 Fed. Cl. 78 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 30, 2017

Kooima to defer additional immunizations at the 12- month well-child visit. Pet’rs’ Ex. 1 at 11, 40. … The Special Master clearly considered all of the evidence in making his findings.

Goff v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 6, 2025

Boylan testified that her proposed causal mechanism involved both the innate and adaptive immune systems, but primarily the innate immune system. Tr. at 114. … He generally agreed, however, that “immune system activation” can contribute to stroke risk and that vaccination is specifically designed to activate the immune system. Id. at 191-92.

John Gerard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 16, 2013

special masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secret or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would clearly … Nurse Perk performed an assessment for the influenza immunization. Id. at 143. She documented that the flu vaccine was contraindicated for petitioner due to his history of GBS.

T. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 20, 2020

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 … Leo’s notes regarding C.T.’s food allergies and immunizations. Id. at 83. Dr. Pollak wrote: “At this time, I do not believe that the food allergies were triggered by the Hib immunization (this is also stated in Dr.