Case law

Quintana v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 3, 2022

To establish entitlement to compensation under the Program, a petitioner is required to establish each of the three prongs of Althen by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. … Petitioner has therefore failed to establish that her November 3, 2012 flu vaccine altered her immune system creating a susceptibility to HSV and subsequent herpes keratitis through a Type IV hypersensitivity reaction.

Manson Constraction Co. v. United States

64 Fed. Cl. 746 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 14, 2005

Under this new estimate, both plaintiffs and B+B Dredging company’s bids were within the 25 percent range established by section 624. … In the court’s view, defendant and the intervenor clearly are correct.

Boling v. United States

38 Fed. Cl. 705 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 8, 1997

Thus, regardless of plaintiffs’ portrayal of the actions that gave rise to the erosion, the nature of the alleged invasion by the Government is such that, if established, it would clearly constitute a taking. … United States, 198 Ct.Cl. 82 , 457 F.2d 975 (1972), the Government’s dominant navigational servitude immunized its dredging activities — all of which occurred below the river’s high-water mark — from suit.

Garrett v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 17, 2014

Joseph Chavez, whom she had been seeing since January 9, 2008, to discuss the immunizations she needed. Med. recs. Ex. 7, at 4. Dr. … Chavez wrote that he “[d]iscussed immunizations in detail with parents who state that 4 their first immunization caused her Diabetes Mellitus.

Q Integrated Companies, LLC v. United States

131 Fed. Cl. 125 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 27, 2017

Under RCFC 60(b)(2), “the moving party ‘must show that the newly discovered evidence, if introduced at trial, clearly would have produced a different result if presented before the original judgment.’” … “The party seeking relief bears the burden of establishing that changed circumstances warrant relief.” Id. (citing Rufo, 502 U.S. at 383).

Exxon Research & Engineering Co. v. United States

46 Fed. Cl. 278 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 9, 2000

D., above, the Defendant took care to qualify its answers to discovery. The Defendant, however, did not qualify its proposed definition of D. … Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the Defendant argued that the Plaintiff did not establish that its experts were qualified to express an opinion.

Parker v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 30, 2019

’s immune system. … His work in vaccine development qualifies him to assert such a theory. Dr.

Banks v. United States

102 Fed. Cl. 115 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 22, 2011

“It is well established that statutes of limitations for causes of action against the United States, being conditions on the waiver of sovereign immunity, are jurisdictional in nature.” Martinez v. … The court qualified Dr.

Alpha I, L.P. ex rel. Sands v. United States

89 Fed. Cl. 347 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 26, 2009

Noting that “it is only a partner, and not the partnership, that qualifies as a ‘taxpayer’ -within the meaning of the [I.R.C.] … Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750-51 , 121 S.Ct. 1808 , 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001) (citations omitted) (“In enumerating these factors, we do not establish inflexible prerequisites or an exhaustive formula for determining the applicability

George Family Trust ex rel. George v. United States

91 Fed. Cl. 177 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 30, 2009

The Tucker Act “confers jurisdiction upon the Court of Federal Claims over the specified categories of actions brought against the United States, and ... waives the Government’s sovereign immunity for those actions.” … Clearly the crop loss accrued within the six year statute of limitations in light [sic] the first year loss [sic] occurred in 2003.” Pis.’ Br. filed Sept. 2, 2009, at 6. Plaintiffs’ filings are imprecise.

Adams v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 14, 2020

OPM has created a schedule for qualifying duties, which are included in Appendix A to Subpart E of 5 C.F.R. Part 532. See 5 C.F.R. § 532.511. … Opp. at 25 (persuasively arguing that the United States’ “detailed motion to dismiss” shows that the United States clearly “understands Plaintiffs’ complaint.”)).

Akal Security, Inc. v. United States

87 Fed. Cl. 311 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 10, 2009

“To qualify as an ‘interested party,’ a protestor must establish that: (1) it was an actual or prospective bidder or offeror, and (2) it had a direct economic interest in the procurement or proposed procurement.” … It appears to the court — on this preliminary view of the facts — that the chances of Akal’s receiving an award were not clearly “insubstantial” and that plaintiff may have had a “substantial” chance of securing an award.

Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 13, 2018

In Seckinger, the United States Supreme Court (“Supreme Court”) explained that contracting parties must “clearly and unequivocally” indicate their intention to shift the risk to the indemnitor, id. at 215, but are not required … The critical question is: What must be shown to establish a right to indemnification of litigation expenses?

Securiforce International America, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 12, 2016

He further stated that Amendment 003 “clearly states the U.S. Government is responsible for the escort, not the contractor.” Mr. … Finally, plaintiff argues that DLA Energy’s improper termination for cause “qualifies as a bad faith termination.”

Sealift, Inc. v. United States

82 Fed. Cl. 527 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 11, 2008

TAL’s crew proposal was for: “Captains and Engineers within [the] company that have tanker experience” and “two licensed engineers, as [TAL’s] in-house technical managers that are qualified to operate the engine room of the … The hailing port of the vessel must be marked on some clearly visible exterior part of the stern of the vessel.”).

California ex rel. Department of Transportation v. United States

27 Fed. Cl. 130 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 30, 1992

Cross-motions are no more than a claim by each party that it alone is entitled to summary judgment, and the making of such inherently contradictory claims does not establish that if one is rejected the other is necessarily … Finally, Attachment 2 to PPM 21-4.1 sets forth standards for the conduct of litigation which must be met by the State in order to qualify for federal funds: Public Roads does not question the judicial action of State Courts

Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. United States

56 Fed. Cl. 228 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 2, 2003

See I.R.C. § 6601(a) (interest “shall be paid” at “the underpayment rate established under section 6621”); I.R.C. § 6611(a) (interest “shall be allowed and paid” at “the overpayment rate established under section 6621”). … We note first that the Treasury Report was authored by Treasury and the IRS, not by members of Congress, and therefore does not qualify as legislative history.

Noffke v. United States

129 Fed. Cl. 341 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 13, 2016

You just would have qualified them with an additional -- 21Citing to Ms. Stiff’s testimony at trial, plaintiff also notes that Ms. Stiff did not provide Mr. … Noffke had many responsibilities, but designating who to pay was clearly not one of them. Mr. McNulty called all the shots on whom to pay and Mr.

Silvers v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 31, 2024

And that focus on the vaccine’s immune system-impacting properties has in fact been underscored by the Federal Circuit, which has noted (at least in dicta) that injuries 3 See Stastny v. … In attempting to establish entitlement to a Vaccine Program award of compensation for a Non-Table claim, a petitioner must satisfy all three of the elements established by the Federal Circuit in Althen, 418 F.3d at 1278:

Bay-Houston Towing Co. v. United States

58 Fed. Cl. 462 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 13, 2003

Judge Cohn decided that MDEQ had not consented to be sued and was therefore immune under the Eleventh Amendment. … Bay-Houston contends 33 C.F.R. § 326.3 (e) "is not absolute: the Corps [ ] may continue processing an application if it is 'clearly appropriate.' ” Bay-Houston Towing Co., 197 F.Supp.2d at 826 n. 23. .