Case law

Walter Dawgie Ski Corp. v. United States

39 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,583 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 21, 1993

The specifications clearly contemplated the use of Patten Road and other paved roads.”); D & L Constr., 185 Ct.Cl. at 753 , 402 F.2d at 999 (“It is clear that defendant, both by the contract documents and by the assurance … statute, executive order, administrative discretion or otherwise, engage in conduct which is a violation of an express or implied provision of a Government contract, the mantle of sovereignty does not give the Government immunity

Connected Global Solutions, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 15, 2022

This is a rational decision clearly reflected in the Administrative Record; it was neither arbitrary nor capricious. … Thus, the RFP clearly contemplates different weights given to non-price factors.

Grant v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 4, 2019

Respondent objected: “First, petitioner has not established that there is a reasonable basis for this claim. … An immune- mediated etiology remained in the differential but was not adequately worked up.

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.

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.

King v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 28, 2023

Treasury was required to approve the application unless the application was “clearly erroneous.” Id. § 1085(e)(9)(G)(v). … Congress has the well-established authority to regulate multiemployer pension plans.

Renfrow v. United States

42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,189 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 18, 1997

This produces a clearly patent ambiguity in the contract on a significant contract matter. *447 Under these circumstances, assuming again the validity of plaintiffs contention, plaintiff would clearly have been under a duty … Accordingly, plaintiff relies on affidavits and declarations to establish a genuine issue of fact.

Cane Tennessee, Inc. v. United States

57 Fed. Cl. 115 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 27, 2003

Defendant also argues that the known volatility and riskiness of the coal market should be taken into account, as should the problems associated with finding a qualified manager for the property and the economic drag of the … The statutory language clearly discusses permits, 30. U.S.C. § 1256, and the petition process, 30 U.S.C. § 1272 .

Cs 321 East 2nd Investors, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 2, 2025

* * * * * Accordingly, neither the OMB memos nor the USE IT Act qualify as a procurement au- thority under the test articulated in Cleveland Assets. … That statutory text clearly presumes the regulated actor is the tenant, not the lessor.

Jaynes v. United States

68 Fed. Cl. 747 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 7, 2005

The plaintiffs contend that shipwrights regularly work under conditions and circumstances that would qualify as high work under Appendix II of the BMTC Agreement and OPM Regulatory Appendix A. … Having established in Section II.

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.

OSG Product Tankers LLC v. United States

82 Fed. Cl. 570 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 19, 2008

The contractor must qualify for *576 the award and be capable of complying with the agency’s schedule. 8 Id. A contractor has the burden of proving that it is presently responsible. … . § 9.103(b) (“In the absence of information clearly indicating that the prospective contractor is responsible, the contracting officer shall make a determination of nonresponsibility.”).

Hastings v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 12, 2022

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. … addressed this issue in their briefing the court will also address it. 7 plaintiff against filing frivolous lawsuits in federal court and dismissed his complaint as a “qualifying

Mildenberger v. United States

91 Fed. Cl. 217 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 29, 2010

Lucie River was foreseeable — and, indeed, had already clearly manifested itself — prior to November 13, 2000. c. … The Federal Circuit has stated that [t]he precedents clearly establish that the Government’s purpose must be related to navigation if it wishes to avoid paying compensation for the regulation or control of private property

Salzer v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 9, 2025

However, he felt that her current condition was “less likely to have been triggered by an IgE reaction” and questioned whether she had another type of immune response. Id. On April 18, 2018, Ms. … In attempting to establish entitlement to a Vaccine Program award of compensation for a non-Table claim, a petitioner must satisfy all three of the elements established by the Federal Circuit in Althen v.

Homick v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 23, 2018

. which has aincreased (sic) after immunizations.” … (sic) after immunizations.”

Chisum v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 5, 2021

Plaintiff fails to cite any applicable law which explicitly waives the sovereign immunity of the United States. … Plaintiff fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction.

KMS Fusion, Inc. v. United States

41 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,000 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 26, 1996

However, as noted, the parties clearly contemplated completion of some work beyond the expiration date. … The evidence establishes that the parties always intended that any additional periods of contract performance would be implemented by bilateral extensions. .

Barker v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 6, 2018

Unlike the hepatitis B vaccine which is routinely administered to children, Zostavax is for immunization against varicella zoster (shingles) and is only administered to adults. … The medical records in this case do not establish causation. Petitioner also filed expert reports from Drs. Judy Mikovits and Francis Ruscetti.

American Apparel, Inc. v. United States

108 Fed. Cl. 11 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2012

After review, DLA agreed that the February 18, 2011 request “did not clearly provide the basis for award,” leading the agency to cancel the original request and reissue the request clearly identifying price as the only evaluation … establish the Government’s intentions and rights under the contract.