Case law

Just in Time Staffing v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 11, 2019

Athey v. United States, 908 F.3d 696, 705 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotations omitted); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). … Ltd. v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 320, 336 (Fed.

Reynolds v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 10, 2025

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Mallori Browne Openchowski, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. … Cir. 1993) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)).

Ammex, Inc. v. United States

52 Fed. Cl. 555 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 20, 2002

Co. v. United States, 29 Fed.Cl. 157, 164 (1993). … “Similarly, in Richfield Oil Corp. v.

Sheridan Corp. v. United States

95 Fed. Cl. 141 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 1, 2010

The Source Selection Board evaluated all of the proposals and issued a summary evaluation report on March 9, 2010. (AR 489-509.) The Source Selection Board assigned a performance rating of “low risk” to Sheridan. … IMS Servs., Inc. v. United States, 32 Fed.Cl. 388, 398 (1994); see also Logicon, Inc. v.

INSLAW, Inc. v. United States

41 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,979 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 29, 1996

See generally INSLAW, Inc. v. United States, 88 B.R. 484 (Bankr.D.D.C. 1988), aff'd, United States v. … See, e.g., Clark v. United States, 167 Ct.Cl. 197, 198 , 1964 WL 8610 (1964); Erie R.R. Co. v. United States, 140 Ct.Cl. 398, 399 , 156 F.Supp. 908, 909 (1957); Ann Arbor Constr. Co. v.

Temple-Inland Inc. v. United States

68 Fed. Cl. 561 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 8, 2005

See, e.g., First Heights Bank v. United States, 57 Fed.Cl. 162 (2003); Centex Corp. v. United States, 55 Fed.Cl. 381 (2003), aff'd 395 F.3d 1283 (Fed.Cir.2005); Nat’l Austl. Bank v. … See, e.g., Davies v.

McAleese v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 22, 2018

Brown, Brown Law Firm, LLP, Houston, TX), for petitioner. Claudia Barnes Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. … MCALEESE, Petitioner, v.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. United States

33 Fed. Cl. 233 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 11, 1995

In Globe Refining Co. v. … Instead, Wells Fargo, like Charlie Brown, had the government’s enticing guarantee “pulled away” at the last minute.

Chapman Law Firm v. United States

63 Fed. Cl. 25 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 23, 2004

(citing ViroMed Labs., Inc. v. … (citing Mercer v.

Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 11, 2019

Brown, Laura W. Duncan, Carter F. Thurman, and Daniela A. Arregui, Washington, D.C., of counsel. … Id. at 1361 (quoting United States v.

Eby v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 22, 2019

Bank, F.S.B. v. … Eby had a reasonable 6 Two decisions by the Federal Circuit involving actions of the Merit Systems Protection Board are also instructive. Boese v. Department of the Air Force, 784 F.2d 388 (Fed.

Trauma Service Group, Ltd. v. United States

33 Fed. Cl. 426 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 5, 1995

See United States v. … . -, 114 S.Ct. 1832 , 128 L.Ed.2d 461 (1994); see also Brown Shoe Co. v. United States 370 U.S. 294 , 306-08 & n. 14, 82 S.Ct. 1502 , 1513-14 & n. 14, 8 L.Ed.2d 510 (1962); Huston v.

McKing Consulting Corp. v. United States

78 Fed. Cl. 715 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 4, 2007

Myers Investigative & Security Servs., Inc. v. United States, 275 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir.2002). See also Info. Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed.Cir.2003); Overstreet Elec. Co. v. … Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324, 1333 (Fed.Cir. 2001). B.

Ideker Farms, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 11, 2019

Brown, Laura W. Duncan, Carter F. Thurman, and Daniela A. Arregui, Washington, D.C., of counsel. … Id. at 1361 (quoting United States v.

Columbia First Bank, FSB v. United States

54 Fed. Cl. 693 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 17, 2002

No. 101-73, 103 Stat. 183, and the resulting breach of its Assistance Agreement with the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). … Further, defendant has not had access to any board meeting packages. Id. at 32.

McKnight v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 24, 2025

United States v. … Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Unisys Corporation v. United States

111 Fed. Cl. 191 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 3, 2013

Brown, McLean, VA, of counsel. OPINION FIRESTONE, Judge. … In making legal interpretations of the provisions and requirements of the CAS, the court looks to any guidance the CAS Board (“CASB”) has published. See Perry v. Martin Marietta Corp., 47 F.3d 1134, 1137 (Fed.

Raspberry v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services

33 Fed. Cl. 420 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 2, 1995

Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 856 , 102 S.Ct. 2182, 2189 , 72 L.Ed.2d 606 (1982); see Gamache v. Secretary, HHS, 27 Fed.Cl. 639, 645 (1993). … Spitz is a board-certified pathologist and it is not apparent that petitioner’s other experts would have treated the evidence in a manner different than Dr. Spitz.

Fms Investment Corp. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 14, 2018

Inc. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 338, 351 (2004); AshBritt v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 344, 371–72 (2009). … Macaulay-Brown, Inc. v. United States, 125 Fed. Cl. 591, 606 (2016) (citation omitted). The relevant inquiry is whether a plaintiff has an adequate alternative remedy. Id. (citation omitted).

Razorcom Teleph & Net, LLC v. United States

56 Fed. Cl. 140 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 7, 2003

The government suggests that MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. United States, 878 F.2d 362 (Fed.Cir.1989), is to the contrary. We disagree. … The statute applied there, relating to the General Services Board of Contract Appeals now-extinct bid protest jurisdiction, was not the same as § 3551(2), although it was very similar. 2 The court rejected a post-award bid