Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
1.96s
Northeast Construction, Inc. v. United States
119 Fed. Cl. 596 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 27, 2015
Plaintiff cannot pursue this claim unless it first establishes the existence of a contract with the Army. … In addition, the evidence in the record strongly suggests that the Army was reluctant to award the contract to plaintiff even though plaintiff was the only qualified offeror.
Cited 8 timesPublishedRosof v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 2, 2017
It is well established that billing for clerical and other secretarial work is not permitted in the Vaccine Program. Rochester v. United States, 18 Cl. … Saxon; he has the same cost of living; and he is equally or more qualified. Pet’r’s Mot., Exhibit 6 at 5. Additionally, Dr.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedJuranek v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 3, 2025
response to the antigen that you are injecting or trying to elicit an immune response to.” … Thus, the research by Eshed et al. does not establish that gliomedin is present in the CNS, but if it is, the authors clearly state that different mechanisms operate in the CNS, and that oligodendrocytes are the relevant
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedVeteran Shredding, LLC v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 14, 2020
Cir. 2012) (explaining that the Tucker Act expressly waives sovereign immunity for claims against the United States in bid protests). … Moreover, best value to the VA – or more accurately put, best value to the Minneapolis VA Healthcare System – is clearly not the same as the best value for our Nation.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 14, 2025
While the 6 Tucker Act waives the sovereign immunity of the United States to allow a suit for money damages, United States v. … To succeed in a challenge to a military correction board’s decision, a plaintiff must demonstrate by “cogent and clearly convincing evidence” that the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. Wronke v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedBennett v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 18, 2023
Although clearly easier to meet than the preponderant standard required for compensation, “courts have struggled with the nature and quantum of evidence necessary to establish a reasonable basis.” Wirtshafter v. … On March 5, 2020, Petitioner was seen in the emergency room of a medical facility close to her home for left shoulder pain following receipt of an immunization. Exhibit 6 at 6.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMagassouba v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 21, 2025
Petitioner alleges that her shoulder injury meets the requirements under the Vaccine Injury Table to qualify as a table SIRVA. (Id. at 3.) … First, petitioner stresses that the medical record clearly indicates that the pain in her right arm began after the administration of her flu shot. (Id.)
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCalifornia Federal Bank v. United States
39 Fed. Cl. 753 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 22, 1997
Here both sides clearly had a common interest: reducing litigation and discovery costs. Plaintiffs had the additional strong interest in obtaining judgments as quickly as possible. … Bernard to qualify as a viable institution”) [Landmark PL Reply Ex. 12], .
Reversed on other grounds by Suess v. United States, 535 F.3d 1348 (2008)Cited 72 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 30, 2021
As discussed below, however, the Supreme Court has questioned over broad definitions of what qualifies as an employee’s principal activities. See IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21, 40– 41 (2005) (citing Steiner v. … Plaintiffs allege that their pleadings and the circumstances of their case, as analyzed under the Lindow factors, “are clearly sufficient to state a claim under the FLSA.”
Cited 0 timesPublishedRanger American of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 21, 2021
Cir. 2012) (explaining that the Tucker Act expressly waives sovereign immunity for claims against the United States in bid protests). … (c) The item is on a Qualified Products List.
Cited 0 timesPublishedRanger American of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 21, 2021
Cir. 2012) (explaining that the Tucker Act expressly waives sovereign immunity for claims against the United States in bid protests). … (c) The item is on a Qualified Products List.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCalifornia Oregon Broadcasting, Inc. v. United States
74 Fed. Cl. 394 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 6, 2006
It clearly, and with *402 out qualification or reservation, gives the lessee the right to renew the lease for a further term of five years, for the term rent of $3,000, payable in equal monthly installments ...” … The court further stated, "The word ‘prior’ as used in clause 2, does not qualify the right of renewal.
Cited 5 timesPublishedDavis/HRGM Joint Venture v. United States
50 Fed. Cl. 539 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 15, 2001
Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction over its complaint. Alder Terrace, Inc. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed.Cir.1998). … Here, Plaintiff clearly challenges the termination of its contract.
Cited 19 timesPublishedLakeland Partners, L.L.C. v. United States
88 Fed. Cl. 124 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 2, 2009
Nyanjong to qualify for Medicaid). According to Lakeland, ICE and DIHS ceased reimbursing it for expenses related to Mr. … United States, 62 Fed.Cl. 109, 114 (2004) (indicating that good cause is established “by specifically demonstrating that ‘disclosure will cause a clearly defined and serious injury" ” (quoting Glenmede Trust Co. v.
Cited 17 timesPublishedMorrill v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 12, 2021
Respondent stated that petitioner had not established that he received a covered vaccine in his right shoulder. Resp. Rept. at 5. … She explained that section D on the form is filled out “right after we give the immunization.” Id.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished80 Fed. Cl. 164 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 4, 2008
The Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have established that § 2501 is a “jurisdictional requirement attached by Congress as a condition of the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity … The construction of summer houses was clearly an open and notorious activity.
Cited 14 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · May 18, 2022
In her response brief, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant and the Nation have more than a “bare trust” relationship with respect to the Site and that Defendant “very clearly ‘has control or supervision over tribal monies … See 25 U.S.C. § 2702(2)–(3) (declaring the policy of IGRA, including to “ensure that the Indian tribe is the primary beneficiary of the gaming operation” and to establish federal regulatory authority and federal standards
Cited 0 timesPublishedAlam v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 16, 2021
TM received the immunization on November 8, 2013. 3. The vaccine was administered within the United States. 4. Petitioners allege that TM suffered from transverse myelitis as a result of receiving the vaccine. 5. … 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 timesUnpublished91 Fed. Cl. 369 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 19, 2010
Mastrolia’s request for punitive damages also is clearly beyond this *382 Court’s purview. See Compl. 6. It is well-established that the Court of Federal Claims lacks authority to grant punitive damages. See Greene v. … The United States has not waived sovereign immunity with regard to punitive damages. As such, Mr. Mastrolia’s request for punitive damages also is DISMISSED. Mr.
Cited 34 timesPublished134 Fed. Cl. 619 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 29, 2017
The leases, thus, are clearly intended to define the relationship between the plaintiff lessees and the United States regarding the appropriation of Klamath Water. … “Manifest,” as in “manifest injustice,” is defined as “clearly apparent or obvious.” Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 555, 557 (2002), aff'd, 384 F.3d 1368 (Fed.
Cited 3 timesPublished
Ask Donna