Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
2.61s
119 Fed. Cl. 762 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 6, 2015
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.” … Defendant notes that to establish jurisdiction under the Tucker Act or Indian Tucker Act over a breach of fiduciary duty claim, plaintiffs must establish that some federal source of law creates such a duty in the first place
Cited 2 timesPublishedBaldi Bros. Constructors v. United States
52 Fed. Cl. 78 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 29, 2002
A1 the same, the EAJA is not a mandatory fee shifting device, Gavette, 808 F.2d at 1465 , and, because the EAJA is a specific waiver of sovereign immunity, it is to be construed narrowly. Chiu v. … defeated certain claims does not alone establish that it so acted with substantial justification.
Cited 19 timesPublishedDaewoo Engineering & Construction Co. v. United States
73 Fed. Cl. 547 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 13, 2006
Plaintiffs counsel argued after trial that tarps did not work in the test section, but testimony during trial established clearly that they did. … Rarely does a case of this magnitude provide evidence of fraud so clearly. .
Cited 20 timesPublished127 Fed. Cl. 775 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 15, 2016
The ERISA statute, however, clearly assigns exclusive jurisdiction for claims under ERISA to the United States District Courts, and, in certain circumstances, it grants concurrent jurisdtction to District Courts and to … Cl. 603, 607 (2009) ("[]t is well-established that the Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over tort claims. Here, Mr.
Cited 5 timesPublishedI3 Cable & Harness LLC v. United States
132 Fed. Cl. 495 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 30, 2017
ACE has qualified multiple companies that are capable of producing all of the components. . . . … Cir. 2012) (explaining that the Tucker Act expressly waives sovereign immunity for claims against the United States in bid protests).
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 12, 2025
Cir. 1999) (“Clearly, the ABCMR [corrections board] was not arbitrary, capricious or unlawful in not awarding relief which was not requested.”); Burns v. United States, 9 Cl. … Cir. 2019) (explaining that 10 U.S.C. § 5304(a)(1) “bars a veteran from receiving both military retirement pay and VA benefits”); 10 U.S.C. § 1174(h) (“A member who has received separation pay … and who later qualifies
Cited 0 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 timesUnpublishedCooper 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 timesUnpublishedThomas F. Neenan, as Trustee of the Thomas F. Neenan, Sr. Revocable Trust v. United States
112 Fed. Cl. 325 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 22, 2013
Neenan immediately qualified this statement: “‘[i]t’s no problem’ is the way she put it. And then she told me to fax the lease, and when I did that, I assumed it was a done deal.” Pl. … According to defendant, plaintiff fails to establish facts showing that defendant made an offer which plaintiff could accept merely by signing the draft lease. We agree with defendant.
Cited 5 timesPublished63 Fed. Cl. 580 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 1, 2005
In the context of the statute as a whole, that phrase should, the court believes, be read to qualify the type of work for which a customs officer is eligible to receive overtime compensation under COPRA rather than to limit … Plaintiffs argue that defendant has failed to perform the requisite analysis to determine whether the duties performed by CEOs fit into any established exemption under FSLA. See Pis/ Reply at 13.
Cited 5 timesPublished44 Fed. Cl. 288 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 14, 1999
Further, ACRA’s argument is too speculative to establish that it would have had a substantial chance to win the award. … Such a bright line rule would require disclosure of all "enhancements” that do not qualify for protection as technical or proprietary information under FAR § 15.306(e)(2).
Cited 37 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 timesPublishedAlfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States
42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,248 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 23, 1998
We were basically named to look over the evaluations and say or establish or conclude what was acceptable and what was not. … Although the court qualified Mr. Randall, he was limited to testimony purporting to demonstrate whether the data submitted on a baseline model can be extrapolated.
Reversed by Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, and Westfalia Separators, Inc., 175 F.3d 1365 (1999)Cited 27 timesPublishedB. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 13, 2024
Csiba further documented that Petitioner’s left deltoid was red; this color change is clearly visible in the photographs he took. Id. at 7. … The deposition of the vaccine components into unintended tissues then caused a local immune- mediated inflammatory reaction.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCgs-Asp Security, Jv, LLC v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 14, 2022
“The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued, and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.” United States v. … [CGS]: It was irrational—I’ll answer yes, . . . but I’d like to qualify it a little bit.
Cited 0 timesPublished70 Fed. Cl. 623 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 2, 2006
Story, of course, had no choice but to speculate about the concept; the federal government would not waive sovereign immunity to allow breach of contract claims to be brought against it until the mutual predecessor of our … In such circumstances, not presented here, a contractor would probably need to show ratification by the RAC’s successor or the institution, in order to qualify for damages. .
Cited 16 timesPublishedMarathon Oil Co. v. United States
42 Fed. Cl. 267 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 17, 1998
In this case, the purpose of the closing agreements is to establish, once and for all, plaintiffs liability for windfall profit tax. … Each closing agreement is just one page long, and clearly indicates the stat *278 utory authority undergirding the agreement.
Cited 15 timesPublishedSmith v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 14, 2018
Höke explained that after the peak immune response after a booster vaccination, the data “clearly shows that [a patient has] very high levels of antibody response six months out and even much longer . . . with certain vaccinations … Höke’s opinion, because he did not clearly define the applicable onset window. Dr.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNorth American Construction Corp. v. United States
56 Fed. Cl. 73 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 1, 2003
Pursuant to the terms of the regulation, that profit clearly belongs to the entity which actually performed the work. GSAR § 552.243-71(2). NACC’s reliance upon Regan/Nager Constr. … In the face of such qualifying language, and in the absence of any evidence that it was either the practice or custom of the government to so extend the effect of those negotiations, or that plaintiffs proposed resolution
Cited 6 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 12, 2013
Deisher states that in 1989, a second dose of MMR was added to the childhood immunization schedule. … Deisher is clearly familiar with this report—which was filed by petitioner and discussed directly by Dr.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna