Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
2.52s
28 Fed. Cl. 254 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 30, 1993
The basis for this approach has been clearly explained in Tolliver v. … Therefore, the court does not even reach the questions of whether the deductions claimed qualify as ordinary and necessary trade or business expenses. .
Cited 6 timesPublished106 Fed. Cl. 765 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 22, 2012
Principally, Plaintiffs failed to establish that any agency supervisor ever directed any of them not to take a meal break. … The Court agreed with the Government, holding “[although the evidence clearly establishes that FBI Headquarters was aware of the operation in advance, plaintiffs have not produced evidence that FBI Headquarters knew in advance
Cited 1 timesPublishedFort Carson Support Services v. United States
71 Fed. Cl. 571 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 19, 2006
But in the evaluation process established for this procurement, the elements matter. … But in the discussions, the Army clearly explained, “you have to establish in your proposals that the numbers and types of people that you propose correlate accurately to the method and means you propose for performing this
Cited 86 timesPublishedTech Systems, Inc. v. United States
98 Fed. Cl. 228 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 11, 2011
aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be — [¶] (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; [¶] (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … The administrative record clearly establishes that the SSA took the “independent assessment” responsibility seriously, and utilized information in the actual proposals in performing his role.
Cited 105 timesPublishedKansas City Power & Light Co. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 10, 2019
The undisputed facts establish the dates for each of these events. First, the parties executed a contract on August 19, 2005. … Although 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a) waives sovereign immunity for claims founded on a contract with the United States and arising under the CDA, that waiver does not extend to subrogation claims by an insurer. Ins.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 23, 2021
Flooding cases – despite the physical nature of the alleged taking – clearly are not subject to any bright line tests. … Particularly in light of the comparable properties which clearly are mortgage eligible, see PX 131 (Slide 26 of Mr. Hosey’s direct testimony), the Court rejects Mr.
Cited 0 timesPublishedGolden It, LLC v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 14, 2025
Cir. 2019) (holding that the government’s regulatory violation did not “affect[] the outcome of its decision” and thus the “Court of Federal Claims did not clearly err in finding that [plaintiff] failed to establish prejudicial … Sure, this Court can imagine a solicitation containing a clearly objective key personnel requirement subject to a binary evaluation.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDesert Sunlight 250, LLC v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 2, 2021
“The ARRA created a temporary program that offered a cash payment in lieu of a tax credit to certain investors for certain qualified investments in clean energy property.” WestRock Virginia Corp. v. … And Plaintiffs have clearly provided enough information to create a factual dispute as to the fair market value of the Facility.
Cited 0 timesPublishedAD Global Fund, LLC ex rel. North Hills Holding, Inc. v. United States
67 Fed. Cl. 657 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 16, 2005
AD Global Fund, LLC (“plaintiff’), is a limited liability company established under the laws of the State of Delaware in 1999. … Even if the Commissioner’s statement was clearly in favor of plaintiff-which it is not-this chain of events would be quite attenuated.
Cited 16 timesPublished62 Fed. Cl. 768 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 2, 2004
Also, the contractual language “determined to be excess by DOE” qualifies the term “equipment,” and, therefore, “equipment” is not the relevant term at issue. … exceptional circumstances exist: (1) the evidence in a subsequent trial is substantially different; (2), controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of the law applicable to the issues; or (3) the earlier ruling was clearly
Cited 0 timesPublishedGemini Tech Services, LLC v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 18, 2025
The D&F and the supporting Mission Impact Statement clearly set forth the significant adverse impact of staying performance. See generally AR, Tabs 19, 21. … The Army clearly stated that “[a]ll alternatives to the CICA override have been considered, but . . . none are determined to be reasonable.”
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedHarris v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 2, 2018
A.H. received the flu immunization on January 27, 2014. 3. The vaccine was administered within the United States. 4. … There is absolutely no agreement on the part of the 8 parties hereto to make any payment or to do any act or thing other than is herein expressly stated and clearly
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCharles J. Monzo v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 27, 2013
Plaintiff has the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. McNutty v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. Of Ind., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936). … a showing that the plaintiff qualifies for that payment by satisfying designated statutory or regulatory requirements.”
Cited 0 timesUnpublished69 Fed. Cl. 487 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 30, 2006
Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over their respective claims. See *491 McNutt v. … Rodriguez has not satisfied the requirements for establishing a third-party beneficiary status.
Cited 13 timesPublishedYankee Atomic Electric Co. v. United States
73 Fed. Cl. 249 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 2006
And, clearly you wouldn’t do it if fuel was being removed from the site. There wouldn’t be a need to, if you will. (Tr. 2328 (Bennett).) … Bennet was previously employed in the nuclear industry and was qualified to testify. (Tr. 1533.)
Reversed in part, on other grounds by Yankee Atomic Electric Co. v. United States, 536 F.3d 1268 (2008)Cited 32 timesPublishedBlue Cross & Blue Shield United v. United States
71 Fed. Cl. 641 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 29, 2006
The plaintiff in this case argues that the extrinsic evidence establishes that paragraph 3(e) must be construed to permit BCW to restate its 1987 opening reserve based on actual claims paid data for 1987. … In this case, BCW clearly communicated to Mr.
Cited 3 timesPublishedM. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 23, 2023
Guillain-Barré Syndrome GBS “is an immune-mediated polyneuropathy characterized by an acute onset of symptoms progressing over a few days to weeks followed in most patients by a progressive recovery.” Pet. … Sheikh references medical literature that he asserts establish two propositions.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 28, 2020
Cl. 771, 779 (2000), wherein this court rejected the government’s argument that recreational trail use and railbanking qualified as railroad purposes. … A categorical taking deprives a roadway for the transportation of persons, the nature of the usage is clearly different.
Cited 0 timesPublishedIntelligent Waves, LLC v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 19, 2017
Deeks, A (Qualified) Defense of Secret Agreements, 49 Ariz. St. L.J. 713, 741 (2016). … Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 20, 2019
The ISO 22000:2005 certificates qualified KGL General Trading to provide food safety management for the procurement, transportation, receiving, storage, and dispatch of 17 wholesale … Plaintiff argues that DLA’s responsibility determination failed to adequately establish that KGL meets three of those requirements.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna