Case law

Scott v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 22, 2024

Specifically, Petitioner asserted that her injury qualifies as a successful Table SIRVA claim and/or a causation-in-fact shoulder injury claim. Id. Petitioner first addressed her Table SIRVA claim. Id. at 13. … He referenced Petitioner’s complaints to treaters and her statements filed in this case as evidence of a localized immune response. Dr.

Lambro v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 27, 2026

First, Plaintiff asserts that an issue should qualify as a “controlling question of law” if it may impact some litigation, somewhere, at some point. … See Smith, 5 F.4th at 703 (“We leave for another day the question whether the statute requires that written consent to be in a separate document, or if instead it is enough if the complaint itself clearly indicates the intent

Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States

115 Fed. Cl. 168 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 7, 2014

March 3, 2003, was attached to the December 2010 letter), id. at 2-3; the definition of unusually hazardous risks in the RIO contract, id. at 3-4; and KBR’s contention that the claims in the third-party suits against KBR qualify … As a large, experienced government contractor, one would expect KBR to clearly state a specific request for a final decision from the CO for any important claim.

Office Depot, Inc. v. United States

95 Fed. Cl. 517 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 24, 2010

upon the above findings, and giving appropriate consideration to the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation, the consensus of the Technical Evaluation Team is as follows: Staples and Office Max are both highly qualified … Contractors were required to identify all products offered as either TAA compliant (made in the United States or in a country qualifying as a "designated country”) or TAA non-compliant (made in some other country).

Westfed Holdings, Inc. v. United States

52 Fed. Cl. 135 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 22, 2002

It is well-established that the party claiming contract damages must prove its damages. See, e.g., Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. … FDIC cannot establish standing by hinging itself to a dismissed claim. .

Passamaquoddy Tribe v. United States

82 Fed. Cl. 256 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 19, 2008

Thus, the limits of the Tecon rule were well-established. … At the same time, County of Cook clearly stated that the Tecon rule did not apply to simultaneous filing situations. Id. at 1090 .

Applegate v. United States

28 Fed. Cl. 554 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 14, 1993

The rationale is that, in derogation of the sovereign’s immunity, Congress conferred jurisdiction to entertain certain claims and that no others could be asserted against the Government, including time-barred claims. … However, the burden is on a plaintiff to establish jurisdiction. Reynolds, 846 F.2d at 748 (citing cases). It should be noted that this is a case asserting an alleged unconstitutional taking.

SDS International v. United States

48 Fed. Cl. 742 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 21, 2001

A court may not “substitute its judgment ... for that of the agency, but should intervene only when it is clearly determined that the agency’s determinations were irrational or unreasonable.” Baird Corp. v. … It also pointed to “[e]xpertise ... in working with the site QAEs to hire the most qualified and capable personnel.” Id. It appears to the court that the SSET considered Mr.

Vereda, Ltda. v. United States

41 Fed. Cl. 495 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 13, 1998

. § 1316.72 et seq., causing plaintiffs claim and bond to be submitted after the twenty day limitation period established by statute. 17 Cl.Ct. at 568-69 . … United States, 35 Fed.Cl. 397, 400 (1996) ("As Plaintiff seeks the return of the monetary value of his forfeited property ... his claim may qualify as one of illegal exaction under the Tucker Act.”).

Kuwait Pearls Catering Company, Wll v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 2019

The Army’s legal position that the DFAC qualified as non-relocatable real property contradicted KPCC’s subcontract which provided for the DFAC’s removal. Pl.’s Ex. 46 at 11. … It is well established that this Court has the authority to construe the SOFA.

Adegbite v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 29, 2021

Cl. 665, 667 (2016) (holding “long-standing precedent establishes this court lacks jurisdiction to act under” the DJA). … Music did not hire them “based upon their race, age and disability though they were qualified for the positions they held with Family Restaurants and had performed their jobs satisfactorily.” Id.

Lodge Construction, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 14, 2022

even if the Court were to revisit its prior decision and consider the United States’ untimely application of the fraudulent concealment doctrine, the Court queries whether the United States’ newly presented factual bases qualify … But the United States makes no attempt to establish the applicability of this doctrine. . . .

City National Bank v. United States

33 Fed. Cl. 224 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 7, 1995

Other regulatory changes included the Dade County Class IV permit requirement, established in 1983, for projects involving the dredging or filling of wetlands. … [because such laws] define the range of interests that qualify for protection as ‘properly’ under the Fifth (and Fourteenth) Amendments.”

Google, Inc. v. United States

95 Fed. Cl. 661 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 4, 2011

The decentralized organizational structure, fragmented governance processes related to the Information Technology (IT) program, lack of oversight, bureau resistance to Departmental guidance, and use of substantially under-qualified … See PGBA, 57 Fed.Cl. at 663 (“Clearly, the public interest in honest, open, and fair competition in the procurement process is compromised whenever an agency abuses its discretion in evaluating a contractor’s bid”).

Grand Acadian, Inc. v. United States

97 Fed. Cl. 483 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 17, 2011

Moreover, because most federal cases on the subject relate to the normal wear of established buildings, see, e.g., Brooklyn Waterfront Term. Corp. v. … The court determined that the government was “clearly not entitled to offset this advantage,” id. at 339 , which, as here, was incidental to the repairs the government was required to undertake, see WDC W.

Staten v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 3, 2023

Although the Tucker Act expressly waives the sovereign immunity of the United States against such claims, the Tucker Act “does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages.” … DISCUSSION The resolution of this case boils down to two interrelated issues: (1) whether a claim for VRRAP benefits qualifies as a claim for veterans benefits; and (2) whether this Court possesses jurisdiction to

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. United States

54 Fed. Cl. 20 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 15, 2002

Washington Legal Found., 524 U.S. 156, 164 , 118 S.Ct. 1925 , 141 L.Ed.2d 174 (1998). 2 Under Maryland law, a plaintiff seeking to establish title to property must establish both possession and legal title by “clear proof … Commonwealth, 404 Pa. 168, 173 , 171 A.2d 163, 165 (1961), 10 the experts here clearly grappled with the unusual nature of the property to be valued.

Zacharin v. United States

34 Fed. Cl. 609 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 3, 1996

Clearly this is not so. See Essen Mall Properties v. … Plaintiff, concerned that Canton might become subject to Exee.Ord. 9301, qualified its bid by stating that it expected to be reimbursed for the extra costs that would accompany Exee.Ord. 9301.

Yalacki v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 6, 2019

Donofrio being deemed or qualified as an expert on psychiatric matters, solely based on his neurologic training and background. Tr. at 312. … Shoenfeld was generally qualified to give an opinion in this case, and I have considered that opinion carefully.

International Data Products Corp. v. United States

70 Fed. Cl. 387 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 10, 2006

To establish the existence of an implied-in-fact contract, a plaintiff has the burden of proffering evidence establishing the same four criteria needed to demonstrate an express contract: (1) mutuality of intent to contract … These statements clearly evidence that the Government did not agree to pay any additional compensation to IDP for the warranty services at issue in this case.