Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
0.45s
Veterans Electric, LLC v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 17, 2019
Courts defer to the agency’s competitive range evaluation unless the agency’s determination is “clearly unreasonable.” Id. 4 II. … First, DVA would establish a competitive range. AR 107-08.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 25, 2023
Cir. 2005) (“The Tucker Act itself does not create a substantive cause of action; in order to come within the jurisdictional reach and the [sovereign immunity] waiver of the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify a separate … Cir. 2015) (“Binding precedent establishes that the Court of Federal Claims has no jurisdiction to review the merits of a decision rendered by a federal district court.”); Vereda, Ltda. v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUnited 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 timesPublishedArgueta v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
102 Fed. Cl. 272 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 22, 2011
“So when I put all that data together that’s why I conclude that this child’s problems as now exist and his infantile spasm, very serious neurologic problem of infancy, were not related to the immunizations he received.” … Sec’y of HHS, 601 F.3d 1349, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2010). *282 The court finds that the Special Master clearly reviewed the record as a whole and, based on the evidence in the record, her conclusion—that Joshua “displayed symptoms
Cited 1 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 15, 2026
AR 396. 4 qualified for his newly assigned role. … White] did not establish . . . that he posed a health or safety risk to himself or others.”25 AR 58.
Cited 0 timesPublishedSacramento Municipal Utility District v. United States
130 Fed. Cl. 735 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 28, 2017
Brewer is an expert in his respective field and qualified to testify as such. See Fed. R. … If a reasonable probability of damage can be clearly established, uncertainty as to the amount will not preclude recovery.” Pl. Post Tr. Reply at 14 (quoting LaSalle Talman Bank, 317 F.3d at 1374).
Cited 0 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 timesPublishedIngham Regional Medical Center v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 13, 2022
So . . . we are clearly signaling that we are not going back to the clearinghouse, we are not going back to the hospital data. … According to the government, plaintiffs’ allegation about “erroneous factual assumptions” is not relevant because “[a] settlement agreement that resolves known factually disputed issues in the face of uncertainty is equally immune
Cited 0 timesPublishedL3 Technologies, Inc. Communication Systems-West v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 22, 2022
L3Harris clearly identified each of the non-compliant frequencies, which it referred to as “less than ideal.” … The Agency further limited this pool to three qualified individuals and created an Independent Review Team (IRT) to carry out the GAO's recommended review.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 11, 2025
Through the Tucker Act, which acts as a waiver of sovereign immunity, Congress has placed within this Court’s jurisdiction any suit against the United States for money damages “founded either upon the Constitution, or … Compl. at 3–4. 16 Such requested equitable relief falls clearly outside this Court’s jurisdiction. Massie v. United States, 226 F.3d 1318, 1321 (Fed.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedIndiana Michigan Power Co. v. United States
57 Fed. Cl. 88 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 27, 2003
Regulations that qualify for Chevron deference include those subject to “notice-and-comment rulemaking.” United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 227 , 121 S.Ct. 2164 , 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001). … We have not attempted to discuss here the entire record support for DOE’s intended 3,000-ton annual rate of delivery, but the evidence shows clearly that such a rate was the minimum needed to meet those objectives.
Cited 7 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 25, 2016
The process of searching for relevant citations was time consuming. lt is a request to the court that any lack of citations be overlooked because statutes and facts are clearly legible, the plaintiff knows this case is important … 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."'
Cited 0 timesUnpublished62 Fed. Cl. 340 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 29, 2004
claimant] when taken as a whole evidenced a sufficient meeting of the minds to establish mutuality of intent to contract.” … It is well established that the government is not bound by the acts of its agents *353 beyond the scope of their actual authority. See Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v.
Cited 3 timesPublishedDavinci Aircraft, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 11, 2025
Clearly, there should not be double recovery, we should not commingle takings compensation and contract damages.”); PGB Hanger, LLC v. United States, 170 Fed. … Cir. 2018) (“It is well established that a takings plaintiff bears the burden of proof to establish that the government action caused the injury.”), cert. denied, 586 U.S. 1069 (2019); Dimare Fresh, Inc. v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedFulcra Worldwide, LLC v. United States
97 Fed. Cl. 523 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 31, 2011
For the SCMS contract, the solicitation clearly stated that the lowest priced, technically acceptable offer would be selected. AR 270. … The Legal Standard for a “Bait and Switch” This Court has established the standard required to demonstrate a “bait and switch.”
Cited 30 timesPublished58 Fed. Cl. 479 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 14, 2003
United States, 516 U.S. 417, 423 , 116 S.Ct. 981 , 134 L.Ed.2d 47 (1996); El Centro, 922 F.2d at 823 (“[T]he Government has long been held immune for such claims for relief.”) (citation omitted). … There was no need, then, for plaintiffs to explore the vagaries of "institutional” ratification, where the issue was clearly whether the empowered officer had — obviously on behalf of the institution — ratified the contract
Cited 17 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 23, 2019
The Tucker Act concurrently "waives the Government's sovereign immunity for those actions." Id. … Finally, it is well-established that due process and equal protection claims rely on constitutional provisions which are not money-mandating; thus, such claims are not within this court's jurisdiction.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 7, 2024
DISCUSSION To establish a Fifth Amendment taking, a plaintiff must possess a protectable property interest in the subject of the taking. Palmyra Pac. Seafoods, L.L.C. v. United States, 561 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. … App. 1984) (holding that language stating “to have and to hold the same together with all singular rights, immunities, privileges and appurtenances to the same” conveys a fee simple interest).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 4, 2020
Cir. 2008) (“An abuse of discretion occurs when a court misunderstands or misapplies the relevant law or makes a clearly erroneous finding of fact.”); PPG Indus., Inc. v. … In the court’s May 31, 2020 Opinion granting defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court did not consider that plaintiff’s withheld monies could qualify as deposits rather than tax payments.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 4, 2020
Cir. 2008) (“An abuse of discretion occurs when a court misunderstands or misapplies the relevant law or makes a clearly erroneous finding of fact.”); PPG Indus., Inc. v. … In the court’s May 31, 2020 Opinion granting defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court did not consider that plaintiff’s withheld monies could qualify as deposits rather than tax payments.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna