Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
0.37s
Spectrum Sciences v. United States
84 Fed. Cl. 716 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 13, 2008
Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing these elements by a preponderance of the evidence. See Gibson v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 160 F.3d 722, 728 (Fed.Cir.1998); Tech. Assistance Int’l, Inc. v. … Such a construction of the CRADA, moreover, would clearly frustrate the parties’ intent. Nowhere is that intent more evident than in the aforementioned section 5.1.1 of Appendix A.
Cited 18 timesPublished44 Fed. Cl. 764 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 29, 1999
Thus, notwithstanding that at the time of plaintiffs EAJA petition the quantum of damages had not been decided and the court had not yet entered final judgment, plaintiff had clearly received actual relief on the merits of … EAJA provides that “attorney fees shall not be awarded in excess of $125 per hour unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys
Cited 17 timesPublishedSierra Nevada Corporation v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 12, 2021
The team qualified its recommendation by noting the expectation that the “[***].” AR 102. … While the Agency’s commitment is clearly designed to give Sikorsky’s would-be competitors (and perhaps the Court) some measure of comfort, the government admits that its promise to compete future delivery orders is an empty
Cited 0 timesPublishedSimmons v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 24, 2019
petition under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10-34 (2012), alleging that the tetanus toxoid-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine he received on April 11, 2008 caused him anaphylaxis, immune … Pain and Suffering In his motion, petitioner argues that his past pain and suffering has clearly exceeded the statutory cap since his Tdap vaccination and he continues to experience daily pain and emotional distress
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 19, 2022
Co., 463 U.S. 29, 50 (1983) (“It is well-established that an agency’s action must be upheld, if at all, on the basis articulated by the agency.”). … As reflected in the report, the Army clearly disfavored this practice.
Cited 0 timesPublishedEmergency Planning Management,inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 2, 2019
Congress created the HUBZone program to “provide Federal contracting assistance for qualified small business concerns located in historically underutilized business zones, in an effort to increase employment opportunities … See id. at 145 (“ED is clearly complying with the 2019 [Appropriations] Act…”). On July 16, 2019, EPM filed its Complaint and motions for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Dkt.
Cited 0 timesPublishedEP Productions, Inc. v. United States
63 Fed. Cl. 220 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2004
Although this case is somewhat different, it, nonetheless, is controlled by the principles established in these amendment decisions. … (GTSI), was clearly superior to that of the other remaining contractor, and set aside the amendment, ultimately awarding the contract outright to GTSI.
Cited 48 timesPublishedBoston Edison Co. v. United States
93 Fed. Cl. 105 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 12, 2010
In response, the NRC established 10 C.F.R. … The “no-interest rule is an aspect of the basic rule of sovereign immunity,” England v.
Reversed on other grounds by Boston Edison Co. v. United States, 658 F.3d 1361 (2011)Cited 14 timesPublishedChippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation v. United States
73 Fed. Cl. 154 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 27, 2006
There, the court said the claim, especially damages, “would clearly depend upon proof of the special facts and circumstances pertinent to the particular ... Shawnee [affected].’” … Plaintiffs reject defendant’s contention, arguing that “[tjhere is no clear error or manifest injustice on this point because the Plaintiff Tribes themselves clearly are members of the plaintiff group.
Cited 8 timesPublishedHardiman v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 16, 2024
Wilson countered that “the status of the immune system on the day of the vaccination is most critical for determining the immune response to it, not the status of the immune system 30-35 days after the fact.” (Id.) Dr. … However, while this is clearly a caveat to Dr. Wilson’s opinion, it does not actually contradict the first part of his statement. Taken as a whole, I understand Dr.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUnited Prepaid Network, Inc. v. United States
112 Fed. Cl. 59 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 29, 2013
Section 4251 establishes a 3% tax “on amounts paid for communications services.” § 4251(a), (b). … UPN avers that it “was not a telecommunications carrier when it made its purchases and qualified therefore as the first purchaser not a carrier.” Pl.‟s Mot. at 6.
Cited 2 timesPublishedBennett v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 1, 2017
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 … The Act defines “legal representative” as “a parent or an individual who qualifies as a legal guardian under State law.” § 33(2).
Cited 0 timesPublishedSterling Savings Ass'n v. United States
80 Fed. Cl. 497 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 19, 2008
Sterling established two subsidiaries to expand the scope of its services. … Among other things, FIR-REA established new capital requirements.
Cited 1 timesPublished64 Fed. Cl. 71 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 3, 2005
court’s illegal exaction jurisdiction and the decisions construing the prior version of section *82 6404(e)(1), but would be particularly unwarranted given the Supreme Court’s repeated admonition that waivers of sovereign immunity … Congress used “may” *79 in 6404(e)(1), but also used "shall” in subsection (e)(2) to establish IRS’ mandatory duty to abate interest.
Cited 31 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · May 19, 2015
On June 21, 1965, plaintiff was discharged from the Army hospital and qualified for limited duty with a temporary physical profile. on August 17,1965, the examining physician found that plaintiff s injuries from the accident … In parlicular, the plaintiff must establish that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. Trusted Integration, Inc. v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedHolmes v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 2, 2026
“Clearly, there was some reaction going on between the time the vaccine was initiated and the seven days later when the neuropathy symptoms started.” Tr. 165. Dr. … In the first three days, it will primarily be an innate immune response. Id. And from day five to ten, will be the adaptive immune response. Id.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedVsolvit, LLC. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 7, 2023
Evaluation Team (“TET”) determined that because VSolvit’s quote did not meet the threshold of having at least a satisfactory confidence rating in the Technical factor, it “[did] not meet the minimum threshold of being a vender qualified … ensure accountability “at the team, program, and solution level,” was “report[ing] weekly and monthly in our status reports,” AR 775; that it would work with Product Owners (“PO”) “to capture, decompose, clarify, and qualify
Cited 0 timesPublishedMelendez Camilo v. United States
89 Fed. Cl. 671 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 25, 2009
Major Melendez Camilo “bears the burden of establishing by ‘cogent and clearly convincing evidence’” that the Correction Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, not supported by substantial evidence, or contrary to law … The Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity, but it does not by itself confer a right to recovery. United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 215-16 , 103 S.Ct. 2961 , 77 L.Ed.2d 580 (1983).
Cited 8 timesPublishedMcCollum v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 5, 2018
history/narcolepsy-flu.html (last visited December 20, 2017). 25 Adjuvant is defined as “assisting or aiding; a substance that aids another, such as an auxiliary remedy; in immunology, a nonspecific stimulator of the immune … The Special Master has clearly “considered the relevant evidence of record, drawn plausible inferences and articulated a rational basis for the decision.” Hines, 940 F.2d at 1528.
Cited 0 timesPublishedRosas v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 22, 2017
No payment pursuant to this Stipulation shall be made until petitioner provides the Secretary with documentation establishing her appointment as legal representative of Mr. Rosas’ estate. … There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated and clearly agreed to.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna