Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
0.84s
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 20, 2021
It also provides an opportunity for military physicians to clearly document all care and treatments received prior to MEB referral and any duty limitations their condition may cause. … In the Board’s opinion, in order to qualify for a referral under the “combined effect” policy, there must be some evidence of an occupational impairment.
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 timesPublished56 Fed. Cl. 270 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 18, 2003
Plaintiffs framework for establishing the elements of a contract does not evidence an agreement with definite terms. … This court has no jurisdiction over claims for promissory estoppel, as it requires the finding of a contract implied-in-law against the Government, for which there has been no waiver of sovereign immunity.
Cited 13 timesPublished86 Fed. Cl. 618 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 31, 2009
Rather, it provides the waiver of sovereign immunity that is necessary to sue the United States. … The Federal Circuit has explained that the decision in Kania established that "a claim for money damages for the alleged breach [of a witness protection agreement] may not be maintained unless that agreement clearly and unmistakably
Cited 49 timesPublishedHughes v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 4, 2023
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 … He is qualified to address both diagnostic and immunological issues regarding these diseases. The first section of Dr.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedEreh Phase I LLC v. United States
95 Fed. Cl. 108 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 3, 2010
These remarks clearly imply that GSA would need to examine more closely GBA’s rsf offer without the option of building additional space. … Plaintiffs recovery of bid preparation costs, instead of the benefit of competing on a level playing field for the MedCom lease, qualifies as irreparable injury. See United Int’l Investigative Servs. v.
Cited 7 timesPublished48 Fed. Cl. 187 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 9, 2000
Given the explicitness of this statutory language and recognizing also that it is to be read “with that conservatism which is appropriate in the case of a waiver of sovereign immunity,” United States v. … Clearly, the bank’s breach of contract claim against the United States' — seeking as it does the expectancy damages allegedly owed to the bank, and through the bank to its shareholders — meets these requirements. *198 Indeed
Cited 47 timesPublishedPCL Construction Services, Inc. v. United States
84 Fed. Cl. 408 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 16, 2008
I suggest to the Court that the evidence here demonstrates very clearly breach of contract, and that result is warranted. … Thus, prior to the creation of the United States Court of Claims, a private citizen’s only means of obtaining compensation from the government was to request “individually tailored waivers of sovereign immunity, through private
Cited 11 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 31, 2020
Entry of summary judgment is mandated against a party who fails to establish “an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” … However, IRC § 23(c) clearly provides that the credit can be carried forward a maximum of five years. Since Ms.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNortheast 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 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 21, 2020
Finally, the United States establishes that its string of successes indicates its litigation posture was substantially justified. … Cir. 1983) (“Although the EAJA lifts the bar of sovereign immunity for award of fees in suits brought by litigants qualifying under the statute, it does so only to the extent explicitly and unequivocally provided.”).
Cited 0 timesPublishedY.S.K. Construction Co. v. United States
39 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,624 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 18, 1994
The principle of judicial deference to an agency’s statutory interpretation is well-established. Under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. … As discussed above, Congress created a statutory scheme in which SBA clearly has the responsibility for deciding questions of SDB status.
Cited 11 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 21, 2020
Finally, the United States establishes that its string of successes indicates its litigation posture was substantially justified. … Cir. 1983) (“Although the EAJA lifts the bar of sovereign immunity for award of fees in suits brought by litigants qualifying under the statute, it does so only to the extent explicitly and unequivocally provided.”).
Cited 0 timesPublishedFirst Annapolis Bancorp, Inc. v. United States
72 Fed. Cl. 369 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 23, 2006
Wayson was *375 “clearly representing First Annapolis” in a loan swap transaction between First Annapolis and Second National. DX 498A at FFA 012 0457. … Parran himself had the private placement memoranda sent, met with most of the investors, and considered whether they were qualified investors. Although Mr.
Cited 1 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 21, 2023
Manago] received a[n] LOR, dated 28 June 2016[,] and this item was used to establish [a UIF].”). In response, on July 22, 2016, Mr. … While the Tucker Act waives the sovereign immunity of the United States to allow a suit for money damages, United States v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedBarrientos v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 11, 2024
“Persistent viral infections can lead to immune-mediated injury due to the constant presence of viral antigen driving the immune response.” Id. … “Persistent viral infections can lead to immune-mediated injury due to the constant presence of viral antigen driving the immune response.” Pet. Ex. 25 at 2.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedLeeward Construction, Inc v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 5, 2022
DISCUSSION Although this protest presents a matter of first impression, well-established principles of contract and statutory interpretation guide the Court’s decision. … Second, the qualifying phrase “location of the Project” further complicates the applicability of the savings clause to this case.
Cited 0 timesPublishedE & E Enterprises Global, Inc. v. United States
120 Fed. Cl. 165 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 27, 2015
The Tucker Act concurrently “waives the Government’s sovereign immunity for those actions.” Id. … App. at 664-65, and this court’s jurisdiction over Count I is established. b.
Cited 11 timesPublishedVeteran 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 timesPublished
Ask Donna