Case law

American Capital Corp. v. United States

66 Fed. Cl. 315 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 31, 2005

GOVERNMENT’S COUNSEL: And how qualified did you consider Mr. Burstein to run a thrift of Transohio’s size? MR. BENHAM: I didn’t really think he was well qualified. … See 12 C.F.R. § 567.1 (qualifying supervisory goodwill); see also PX 1266.

Palafox Street Associates, L.P. v. United States

114 Fed. Cl. 773 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 12, 2014

Although the Tucker Act waives the sovereign immunity necessary for a plaintiff to sue the United States for money damages, United States v. … See supra Part IV (establishing the supplemental briefing schedule). B.

Cottingham v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 2, 2021

A report from a qualified expert stating that the vaccination harmed Ms. … With respect to etiology, “[b]ased on the temporal relationship between immunization and the development of symptoms, [the authors] cannot deny the possibility that immunization with HPV vaccines may secondarily induce sympathetically

Texas ex rel. Texas Workforce Commission v. United States

134 Fed. Cl. 8 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 5, 2017

Roland Marshall, a qualified, licensed Randolph-Sheppard (RS) Manager pursuant to the Randolph-Sheppard Act.” The proposal stated further, “Mr. Marshall will provide the on-site contract management and production. … GAO explained, “Congress has specifically authorized the Secretary of Education, not our Office, to review complaints from SLAs about agency compliance with the Randolph-Sheppard Act, and since these protests raise issues clearly

Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. United States

49 Fed. Cl. 398 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 15, 2001

Qualifying to prepay a loan was subject, among other conditions, to a determination by the Secretary of the Treasury that prepayment would not have an adverse effect on FFB’s operation. … So RUS was tasked with an oversight role in the establishment of a trust mechanism.

A-T Solutions, Inc. v. United States

122 Fed. Cl. 170 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 14, 2015

Marginal: Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. … Nor has Plaintiff established that DTRA failed to rationally explain its award to Cubic. This was a best-value procurement.

Agredano v. United States

82 Fed. Cl. 416 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 24, 2008

The court qualified Ms. Mayne as an interpreter of the Spanish language in the trial. Id. 10:7-9. Ms. … The court qualified Ms. Monroy as an interpreter of the Spanish language in the trial. Id. 14:20-22. .

M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States

84 Fed. Cl. 182 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 3, 2008

This Court’s predecessor, the United States Claims Court, has looked to the following factors in determining whether a contractor’s written demand qualifies as a claim under the CDA: [w]hether the letter clearly and unequivocally … Nor, in the case of some of the requests, did it make a specific claim or establish an entitlement to relief.

Leming v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 15, 2022

. § 300aa.  6, 2016, caused her to suffer from immune thrombocytopenic purpura (“ITP”), immune dysfunction, and immunodeficiency. Petition at 1. … any subsequent non-invasive platelet count testing was not a “residual effect” within the meaning of the Vaccine Act as there was “no showing or argument that it was detrimental to [the minor’s] health such that it might qualify

ITT Federal Services Corp. v. United States

45 Fed. Cl. 174 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 29, 1999

court must determine whether or not defendant’s actions toward ITT were: (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … That regulation further provides: [I]n acquisitions where the requirement is clearly definable and the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, cost or price may play a dominant role in source selection.

Stine v. United States

92 Fed. Cl. 776 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 10, 2010

Smith’s memorandum “does not establish that [Mr. … United States, 34 Fed.Cl. 159, 164 (1995) (“An award of a higher VA rating does not establish error or injustice in the Army rating.”).

Ernst & Young, LLP v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 5, 2018

PwC made an effort to clearly distil[l] and detail the composition of the individual VISN . . . teams. … Cir. 1994) (“We recognize, of course, that a movant who clearly establishes the first factor receives the benefit of a presumption on the second.”).

1100 W. Ewing Assoc, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 27, 2018

If negotiations are successful, the STB suspends 2 abandonment proceedings and the interested third party establishes recreational trails on the rail corridor. … and expressly limits or qualifies the interest conveyed.”

Mortgage Contracting Services, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 18, 2021

These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror. … Cir. 2012) (explaining that the Tucker Act expressly waives sovereign immunity for claims against the United States in bid protests).

Valdez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 8, 2024

Accordingly, before I would conclude petitioner had a reasonable basis to proceed based on either fibromyalgia or small fiber neuropathy, I required petitioner as a threshold matter to have a qualified expert establish either … The WHO defines ISRRs as “[adverse events following immunization] arising from anxiety about the immunization.” (Id. at 16.) According to Dr.

BEDWELL v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 27, 2026

In other words, the Tucker Act “waives sovereign immunity and provides jurisdiction . . . where there is a [federal] money-mandating provision on which the plaintiff may base its recovery.” … Plaintiffs clearly provided before values for their properties. For example, for the Stewart property, Plaintiffs’ experts valued the land at $4,000 an acre before the date of taking.

Defense Base Services, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 13, 2020

It “recommended Contractor employees be in good health and physically and mentally qualified to withstand the rigors of remoteness.” Id. B. Solicitation and Award 1. … The Air Force clearly documented why it found ASRCC’s past performance references somewhat similar in complexity and scope. For example, regarding [. . .]

Colon v. United States

32 Fed. Cl. 481 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 12, 1994

This fact clearly supports the voluntariness of plaintiffs discharge. Clifton, 31 Fed.Cl. at 595, 598 . … Plaintiff has failed to establish by “cogent and clearly convincing evidence” that the determination by the ABCMR denying plaintiff relief was “arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law or unsupported by substantial evidence

Boyd v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 14, 2021

The record listed the recent flu vaccine in the immunization history section, but no complaints or findings pertaining to the left shoulder. The musculoskeletal exam states only: “Normal gait.” Id. … Respondent correctly observes that neither letter is more clearly depicted than the other.

Cienega Gardens v. United States

67 Fed. Cl. 434 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 29, 2005

feature of regulation is not that it permits wealth transfers to be achieved that could not be achieved otherwise; but rather that it permits them to be achieved ‘off-budget,’ with relative invisibility and thus relative immunity … Thus, the statutes and the record in this case establish a character consistent with that of a taking. See, e.g., Kaiser Aetna v.