Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
1.29s
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 1, 2020
In challenging determinations of a military corrections board, a plaintiff must demonstrate “by cogent and clearly convincing evidence,” Wronke v. Marsh, 787 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed. … Philippeaux] [was] physically qualified for discharge from active duty and whether any physical conditions existed that required a referral for treatment” or whether Mr.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · May 5, 2016
Respondent concluded: “Inasmuch as petitioners have not provided reliable evidence sufficient to establish that [J.V.]’s August 2, 2000 DTaP vaccination resulted in a Table encephalopathy (and they have not established a … Petitioners have not established a Table Injury anaphylaxis.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMetcalf Construction Co. v. United States
102 Fed. Cl. 334 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2011
The court has found that the Navy clearly established that the unilateral modification A00024 to credit the Navy for $399,722 for roof battens (JX Al at DEF0498602; JX E27 at DEF0064701-02; TR 1897-98, 1902 (Peralta)) and … Sometime in 2000-2001, Metcalf qualified as a certified HUB Zone contractor, TR 1423-24, and on May 24, 2001, bid on the Navy pro^ ject. PX 47. Thereafter, Mr.
Cited 9 timesPublishedRupert v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 7, 2021
Said guideline also indicates that 120–139 mm Hg systolic and 80–89 mm Hg diastolic is “elevated” and qualifies as prehypertension. Id. … He stated that cytokines “facilitate[] the immune response, amplif[y the] immune response.” Tr. 62:19 –20.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedChromalloy San Diego Corporation v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 3, 2019
It establishes terms and conditions to use GE’s intellectual property and provisions (e.g., quality requirements) to accomplish repair and test of GE designated engine models. … However, the Navy had previously found Chromalloy qualified to overhaul LM2500 engines despite Chromalloy’s lack of a GE Level IV license.
Cited 0 timesPublished54 Fed. Cl. 747 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 19, 2002
The evidence at trial was that the MDNR will permit adjoining agricultural users to establish regular crossing points. Many such agricultural crossings were apparent. … While both experts are plainly highly qualified to give expert evidence on valuation, for reasons set out below, the court concludes that, with one significant exception, it found Mr.
Cited 13 timesPublished103 Fed. Cl. 645 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 6, 2012
United States, 56 Fed.Cl. 572, 578 (2003) (determining that allegations of bad faith were “merely conclusory and ... clearly contradictory to the record”); J. Cooper & Assocs., Inc. v. … Plaintiff also seeks an injunction directing the AAFES to establish equal rates for all vendors conducting business at Fort Benning.
Cited 36 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 26, 2018
To establish a taking, Plaintiffs must establish their ownership interest in the private property allegedly taken. See Cienega Gardens v. United States, 331 F.3d 1319, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003). … The Cosner deed, however, conveys the “Strip” specifically “for Rail way purposes,” thus adding significant qualifying language that is absent from the Ferguson deed.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 24, 2022
Further, “even if there was evidence that [he was] suffering from a qualifying disability,” the BCNR highlighted that “[d]isability regulations directed that separation processing for misconduct which may qualify for an Other … Because the Tucker Act only waives sovereign immunity and does not create substantive rights, a plaintiff must identify a separate source of law that can be fairly interpreted as creating a right to money damages.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 20, 2018
Instead, the Tucker Act is a “jurisdictional provision[] that operate[s] to waive sovereign immunity for claims premised on other sources of law (e.g., statutes or contracts).” Id. … Plaintiff has the burden to establish that the BCMR’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence.
Cited 0 timesPublishedLove Terminal Partners v. United States
97 Fed. Cl. 355 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 11, 2011
establish a legislative taking. … Clearly, once the gates are demolished, little use remains.
Cited 9 timesPublishedNorth Star Steel Co. v. United States
58 Fed. Cl. 720 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 26, 2003
Therefore, Congress directed FERC to promulgate rules under PURPA to require utilities to purchase electricity from “qualifying” cogeneration and smaller power production facilities. … The party moving for summary judgment has the burden initially of establishing no genuine disputes of material fact are in dispute. See Celotex Corp. v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedCashman Dredging and Marine Contracting Co., LLC v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 20, 2020
Because Trade West qualified as a small business under the terms of the IFB, however, the CO referred the responsibility issue to the Small Business Administration (“SBA”). … The legal inquiry into whether a regulation was established to benefit bidders was articulated by the United States Court of Claims: “Not every regulation is established for the benefit of bidders as a class, and still fewer
Cited 0 timesPublishedDairyland Power Cooperative v. United States
77 Fed. Cl. 330 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 29, 2007
Qualified Nature of the Deliberative Process Privilege. 1. Balancing Test As a final matter, the deliberative process privilege is not absolute. … that where a demonstrated need for documents sought is clearly sufficient, on balance to override a claim of privilege, the documents must be produced.”
Cited 18 timesPublishedHERVEY v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 15, 2025
A manifestation of onset is more self-evident of an injury and may include significant symptoms that clearly evidence an injury. … 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 evidence. Id.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 15, 2022
Cir. 1994) (explaining that dismissal of allegations of tort and criminal violations on the part of judicial officials is “so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal … It is well established, however, that none of these statutes are money mandating. See, e.g., May v. United States, 534 F. App’x 930, 933 (Fed.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCommunication Construction Services, Inc. v. United States
116 Fed. Cl. 233 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 30, 2014
CCS misconstrues Motorola to establish a general principle that submission of a proposal is always required to establish the implied-in-fact contract necessary for § 1491(a) pre-award protest jurisdiction. … This language underscores the appellate court’s recognition that the submission of a bid is not the sine qua non for establishing an implied-in-fact contract and acknowledges alternatives for “otherwise” establishing the
Cited 18 timesPublishedStandard Manufacturing Co. v. United States
42 Fed. Cl. 748 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 25, 1999
The opinion testimony of qualified experts. 15. … However, using Standard’s WACC for a delay compensation interest rate would clearly be against the aforementioned judicial policy favoring the establishment of uniformity.
Abrogated by Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (2011)Cited 19 timesPublishedFederal Deposit Insurance v. United States
51 Fed. Cl. 265 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 21, 2001
the dispute over the receivership deficit is a non-justiciable intra-governmental controversy- First, the FDIC cannot pursue the receivership deficit claim in this case because the Federal Circuit in Landmark and Glass clearly … The procedural device of derivative actions does not broaden the scope of the waiver of sovereign immunity.
Cited 10 timesPublishedB & S Transport, Inc. v. United States
68 Fed. Cl. 103 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 12, 2005
B & S certified that it was a small disadvantaged business concern that met the responsibility criteria established by applicable Federal Acquisition Regulations. See 48 C.F.R. § 9.104-1 . … The Army added two qualifying tires as approved substitutes because of the potential unavailability of Bridgestone tires. These were the Denman DEX 11 tire and the Specialty Super Transport.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna