Case law

DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc. v. United States

133 Fed. Cl. 314 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 16, 2017

As an initial matter, the court notes the wide latitude that parties have in establishing the terms of a contract between them. … Even the court’s decision in Olin qualifies its conclusion as applicable only if the termination provision at issue is not “exclusive.” Olin, 576 F.2d at 647.

Bishop Hill Energy LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 10, 2016

Further, the counterclaim clearly alleges that $4,380,039 was attributable to the Development Fee. Def.’s Reply at 6. … Plaintiffs’ argument in this regard does not establish that the government’s factual allegations are fundamentally contradictory, and fails to establish that the government’s counterclaim is not plausible.

Jaynes v. United States

75 Fed. Cl. 218 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 14, 2007

Plaintiffs contend that shipwrights regularly work under conditions and circumstances that would qualify as high work under Appendix II of the BMTC Agreement and OPM Regulatory Appendix A. … United States, 931 F.2d 879, 882 (Fed.Cir.1991) (“Our precedent clearly establishes that the ‘prevailing rate’ legislation is a pay-mandating statute.”); see also Adair v.

French v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 17, 2026

For both Table and Non-Table claims, Vaccine Program petitioners must establish their claim by a “preponderance of the evidence.” § 300aa-13(a). … However, Watts is clearly distinguishable, both because I find this petitioner’s return to treatment to be credible and because the gap in treatment is much less lengthy.

Cane Tennessee, Inc. v. United States

62 Fed. Cl. 703 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 29, 2004

Under that rule, a statute that “wholly eliminated the value” of Lucas’ fee simple title clearly qualified as a taking. … The court must consider, as part of its takings analysis, the reasonableness of the claimant’s investment-backed expectations only when the evidence does not clearly establish that no economically viable use of the property

Visual Connections, LLC v. United States

120 Fed. Cl. 684 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 7, 2015

It is well established that “‘subject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court’s power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or waived.’” Arbaugh v. … --In prescribing the evaluation factors to be included in each solicitation for competitive proposals, an executive agency shall-- (A) establish clearly the relative importance assigned

ATK Thiokol, Inc. v. United States

68 Fed. Cl. 612 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2005

The established cost of this effort is approximately $4 million. Id. … the intent can be more clearly expressed by eliminating the phrase... “, or in support off.]” *638 See PI.

Chevy Chase Land Co. of Montgomery County v. United States

37 Fed. Cl. 545 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 10, 1997

The Vogler court instructed that to establish an intent to abandon, the party with the burden of proof must present evidence of “[A] cesser of the use, coupled with any act clearly indicative of an intention to abandon the … Were a qualifying property interest shown, to prevail, the Club would have to continue to prove that the federal regulation has interfered with this interest to the extent necessary to establish a taking.

Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. United States

39 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,582 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 15, 1993

As needed, plaintiff established field offices for supervisors at project locations. … The contract does not contain a provision establishing when the NTP should be issued.

Integrated Finance & Accounting Solutions, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 16, 2022

To qualify as an “interested party” a protestor must be an actual or prospective bidder who has a direct economic interest in the procurement. /d. (citations omitted). … The Government rejects this argument as nothing more than a disagreement with the Agency’s evaluation, which falls short of establishing that the evaluation was arbitrary or capricious.

Allensworth v. United States

122 Fed. Cl. 45 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 26, 2015

The moving party carries the burden of establishing its entitlement to summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). … The court in Haytian qualified this “test” as only “[o]ne of the tests laid down” to determine whether causes of action should have been joined in one suit. Id.

Orr v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 30, 2019

United States, 568 U.S. at 33 (in each case the Supreme Court noted “[t]hese exercises of government authority . . . qualified as compensable temporary takings”). … It is clearly relevant to the present case to learn in discovery why the Plaintiff’s property had to be sacrificed, as opposed to other property, including other portions of the National Forest itself

Englewood Terrace Ltd. Partnership v. United States

61 Fed. Cl. 583 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 10, 2004

Defendant United States (“Government”) argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter, contending that Englewood must “establish some substantive provision of law, regulation, or the Constitution, which can be … In the first place, the Government seems to misunderstand the Tucker Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity.

Global Computer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States

88 Fed. Cl. 52 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 22, 2009

United States, 74 Fed.Cl. 129, 138 (2006) (permitting supplementation with declarations that “meet the criteria established in Esch”); Murakami v. … Therefore, most of the content of the declarations does not qualify as “opinion” testimony subject to Rule 701.

Murphy v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 3, 2017

Finn has only practiced law since 2003.6 The forum rate ranges established in McCulloch for attorneys practicing 11-19 years’ experience, like Ms. … But, his requested rate greatly exceeds what the most highly qualified experts ever receive in Program cases.

Prowest Diversified, Inc. v. United States

42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,204 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 19, 1997

Section 611, entitled “Interest,” merely establishes the first date that the government must pay interest and at what rate. It does not refer to costs. … In Pierce , the Court stated that: [T]he exception for “limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved” must refer to attorneys “qualified for the proceedings” in some specialized sense, rather than

Sokol v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 4, 2020

Small would be more qualified than Dr. Messé. However, this point is purely hypothetical as Dr. Messé stated that he restricts his testimony to cases involving strokes. … Small’s theory suffers from several weaknesses that ultimately render the theory unreliable for the purposes of establishing a causal connection.6 C. Dr. Small did not establish that Mr.

M. Nicolas Enterprises, Llc.

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 23, 2022

A motion to transfer is not “in the interest of justice” where the associated claims clearly lack merit. See Bey v. United States, 153 Fed. Cl. 814, 820 (2021) (citing Spencer v. United States, 98 Fed. … Plaintiff cannot expand the scope of the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity simply by choosing to forego a remedy that it could (but would rather not) pursue.

Mw Builders, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 5, 2018

Cl. 1928) (“If it was included by the terms of the settlement it is clearly a mutual mistake, and the settlement contract may be reformed. This, we think, is unnecessary. … MW Builders also contends that the other precedential decisions support the argument that, notwithstanding the unambiguous nature of the release, extrinsic evidence should be admissible to establish the parties’ intent.

Stahl v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 28, 2018

Therefore, the parry "invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the[ ] elements [of standing].,; Lujanv. … The plainfiff, _however, must and take advantage establish that h".