Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
1.32s
Scharfenberger v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 5, 2015
Sept. 30, 2014) (interim attorney’s fee application for an ongoing flu/multiple sclerosis and immune deficiency claim). … Oct. 14, 2011). 11 As with his overall burden in establishing the reasonableness of his fee request, Mr. Scharfenberger must therefore establish what rate his counsel should receive.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 23, 2019
Bailey had qualified for the Calendar Year 10C (“CY10C”) Colonel Line Central Selection Board and had been selected for promotion. A.R. 72-73. … The Secretary must also establish procedures for making such corrections. Id. § 1552(a)(3)(A).
Cited 0 timesPublishedPalladian Partners, Inc. v. United States
119 Fed. Cl. 417 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 30, 2014
As a result, the CO [contracting officer] clearly erred in assigning NAICS code 541712.” Info. Ventures, Inc., SBA No. NAICS-5544 , 2014 WL 1395651 , at *5 (Apr. 2, 2014). … establishments) are classified in U.S.
Cited 1 timesPublishedMeyer Group, Ltd. v. United States
121 Fed. Cl. 105 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 30, 2015
This provision would clearly contradict Defendant’s proposed construction that the Agreement abruptly ended upon consummation of a single initial lease. … “If a reasonable probability of damage can be clearly established, uncertainty as to the amount will not preclude recovery.” Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. v. Barram, 226 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quoting Locke v.
Cited 4 timesPublishedVeridyne Corp. v. United States
83 Fed. Cl. 575 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 12, 2008
In order to continue with plaintiff, both plaintiff and MAR-AD knew that the Contract would be opened to competition unless plaintiff satisfied a $3-million qualifying limitation to the contract value. 1 Before the court … The Federal Circuit agreed that the “payment provisions of this agreement so clearly and substantially violate[d] the statutory prohibition against advance payments,” such that “the agreement is plainly illegal and void ab
Cited 13 timesPublished126 Fed. Cl. 165 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 1, 2016
For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiffs have failed, at this juncture, to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, the requirements .of RCFC 23. I. … See 5 U.S.C. §§ 5544 (a), 2 5546(a). 3 On May 26, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that “the word ‘employee,’ as used in Section 5546(a) of the Premium Pay Statute, clearly includes those
Cited 2 timesPublished69 Fed. Cl. 718 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 10, 2006
Plaintiff has submitted the documents establishing such authorization. … Plaintiff clearly took title subject to the latter. The question is whether she has become a party to the mortgages and notes. .
Cited 1 timesPublishedGeospatial Technology Associates, LLC v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 10, 2019
Title 28, United States Code, section 1498(b) waives the government’s sovereign immunity with regards to copyright infringement claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b). … First, there can be no genuine dispute that the ACA limits the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to GTA’s claims.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedAmber Resources Co. v. United States
68 Fed. Cl. 535 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 15, 2005
All five units had scheduled a date to begin the spudding (i.e. the drilling) of a well. 33 Well spudding is clearly an on-the-water activity. And it is significant. … Without relying on such precedent, the court pointed out that the waiver of sovereign immunity relates to particular claims, not to particular claimants. Id. at 1373-74.
Cited 24 timesPublishedKansas City Power & Light Co. v. United States
132 Fed. Cl. 28 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 26, 2017
admitted and qualify or deny the rest. … Next, the prior statement must qualify as one of the rule’s enumerated exceptions.
Cited 3 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · May 16, 2023
Cl. 292, 305 (2005) (contrasting “two waivers of sovereign immunity” — “[t]he first is found in the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (2000), the foundation of this court’s jurisdiction, and the second is found in the [APA … His social anxiety and panic attacks clearly hindered his work relationships, as he described feeling uncomfortable around others, especially in crowds or when speaking to someone in professional roles. AR 1083.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCooper v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 19, 2016
He advised petitioner to “categorically avoid” immunizing S.W. with Hepatitis B vaccine in the future. Id. In a letter dated June 13, 2011, Dr. … causation is not necessary to establish a reasonable basis for filing a claim.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSheller v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 1, 2023
The Special Master Did Not Abuse His Discretion To qualify for fees, Petitioner must have had “a reasonable basis for the claim” at the time he filed it. Cottingham, 971 F.3d at 1344. … The difference between establishing causation for the merits and for a fee application, rather, is in the burden of proof. See Cottingham, 159 Fed.
Cited 0 timesPublishedT. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 25, 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 … Tourette syndrome (the most likely diagnostic explanation for the purported vaccine injury) has been connected to immune-mediated inflammation in some medical literature, even though Petitioner’s causation theory ultimately
Cited 0 timesUnpublished107 Fed. Cl. 339 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 2, 2012
STANDARDS FOR DECISION A Jurisdiction Subject matter jurisdiction must be established before a case can proceed on its merits. Steel Co. v. … United States, 461 F.2d 806 (Ct.Cl.1972) (holding that prior reenlistments in any branch of the uniformed services must be considered in determining whether a current reenlistment was a “first reenlistment” qualifying for
Cited 8 timesPublished61 Fed. Cl. 326 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 16, 2004
Work performed in any environment where the airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers may expose an employee to potential illness qualifies that individual for EDP, according to plaintiffs. … Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972), ruled: “To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it.
Cited 2 timesPublishedLiberty v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 24, 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 … No recent immunizations, illness or other injuries. Id. Petitioner underwent multiple MRIs, with and without contrast, during his stay at Legacy Meridian Hospital. See Ex. 9 at 26-28.
Cited 0 timesPublished61 Fed. Cl. 467 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 30, 2004
Def.App. at 289; see also Def.App. at 300-01 (Coopers & Lybrand letter stating that the merger did not qualify under the pooling method). … Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to establish the threshold requirement of mutuality of intent. b. Regulatory Approval Of The Merger Alone Does Not Establish Intent To Contract.
Cited 1 timesPublished30 Fed. Cl. 164 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 24, 1993
The well-established precedent is that the “implied contract” jurisdiction of the Tucker Act extends only to cases in which a plaintiff can demonstrate facts satisfying each of the elements of a contract. … Defendant also conténds that the opinion does not clearly state that the court found that it did not need to address defendant’s timeliness argument.
Cited 8 timesPublished84 Fed. Cl. 463 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 31, 2008
The burden of establishing jurisdiction falls upon the plaintiff. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. … Coleman, 390 U.S. 599, 602 , 88 S.Ct. 1327 , 20 L.Ed.2d 170 (1968) (“[I]n order to qualify as Valuable mineral deposits,’ the discovered deposits must be of such a character that ‘a person of ordinary prudence would be justified
Cited 4 timesPublished
Ask Donna