Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
1.42s
Octo Consulting Group, Inc. v. United States
117 Fed. Cl. 334 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 13, 2014
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 … For example, in 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.
Cited 4 timesPublishedRaytheon Company v. United States
121 Fed. Cl. 135 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 2, 2015
Raytheon is evaluated as Acceptable with the lowest [Best Value Assessment] and is deemed to possess the requisite technical, management and financial capability to perform the effort and is otherwise qualified … Names should be used consistently, clearly list CT vs CTE. TRA report – CT if sys[tem] depends on an element. . . . CTE in question is the [. . .], not just a portion . . . .
Cited 26 timesPublishedCienega Gardens v. United States
38 Fed. Cl. 64 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 29, 1997
This provision clearly indicates that HUD intended the use restrictions to be concurrent with the life of the loan rather than the life of the property. … Plaintiffs’ properties qualify as eligible low-income housing within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. § 4119 for the purposes of LIHPRHA’s preemption provisions. 15 LARSO *85 prevents affected low-income housing owners such as plaintiffs
Reversed by Cienega Gardens v. United States, 194 F.3d 1231 (1998)Cited 25 timesPublishedGear v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 8, 2020
She reports that when she had her tetanus shot in Nov 2015, she feels like the immunization was given wrong. … She reports that when she had her tetanus shot in Nov 2015, she feels like the immunization was given wrong.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedGoddard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 3, 2019
It is feasible that, with support from an expert, a petitioner could successfully claim that a flu vaccine can and did cause Bell’s palsy, which is an immune-mediated process. … The petitioner “bea[rs] the burden of establishing the hours expended, the rates charged, and the expenses incurred” are reasonable. Wasson, 24 Cl. Ct. at 484.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedLeong v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 25, 2020
Legal Standards Regarding Fact Finding Petitioner bears the burden of establishing his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. § 13(a)(1). … Teng wrote “Rash initially started in June/September 2014…Mom concerned that initial lesions were caused by HPV immunization in Feb 2014.
Cited 0 timesPublishedAmerican Federal Bank, FSB v. United States
62 Fed. Cl. 185 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 2004
Establishing new, “stick built” branches thus was difficult for American Federal. … Authority to bind the government thus has been established regarding the substituted contract. C.
Cited 12 timesPublishedRice-Mckenzie v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 15, 2025
Being on-Table, a reputable medical theory that flu vaccine can cause GBS has been clearly established and accepted by the government. … He noted continuing “concerns for possible rheumatological/immune mediated process”. Id. at 4.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedConsolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. United States
92 Fed. Cl. 466 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 17, 2010
Contel Advanced Sys., Inc., 384 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed.Cir.2004) (“[T]he no-interest rule is an aspect of the basic rule of sovereign immunity”). … Absent a contractual or congressional waiver of sovereign immunity, Entergy’s claims are subject to the statutory “no-interest rule.” Entergy’s expert, Mr.
Cited 17 timesPublishedUnited Affiliates Corporation v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 21, 2021
While the Circuit agreed with most of the trial court’s decision, the Circuit found the privilege to clearly apply to certain documents. See In re United States, 678 F. App’x at 988-92. … Establishing the deliberative process privilege requires the following steps.
Cited 0 timesPublished69 Fed. Cl. 397 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 23, 2005
Starke clearly arrived at his views using his own idiosyncratic definition of the phrase “predetermined underaged strength,” which has now been debunked. Indeed, on cross-examination, Dr. … As such, silver clearly does not qualify as a "trace element” within the meaning of the patent. .
Cited 11 timesPublishedRed Cedar Harmonia, LLC v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 28, 2025
United States, No. 24-1862. 3 A BPA is a “simplified method of filling anticipated repetitive needs for supplies or services by establishing ‘charge accounts’ with qualified sources of supply.” FAR 13.303-1(a). … The excerpts cited from the Solicitation are clearly a requirement to ensure that offerors dot their i’s and cross their t’s.
Cited 0 timesPublishedPartner 4 Recovery v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2018
This will help ensure that [P4R] will maintain a pool of qualified and trained staff[. … Therefore, P4R did not establish prejudice as to disparate ratings.
Cited 0 timesPublishedPowers v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 8, 2024
a vaccine covered by the Program, administered either in the United States and its territories or in another geographical area but qualifying for a limited exception; suffered the residual effects of his injury for more … The PT records are clearly imperfect, starting with their initial mis-documentation of abnormal physical exam findings as being in Petitioner’s right, rather than left, arm.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedZolon Pcs II, LLC v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 30, 2025
Separate from this standard, the Court’s rules list “relevant” “core documents” that may “qualify for inclusion in the administrative record.” Poplar Point, 145 Fed. Cl. at 494; RCFC App. C § VII, ¶ 22. … 5 Since the Court concludes that application of the new FAR rule via Amendment 12 is not impermissibly retroactive under step one, the Court does not reach step two to ask whether FAR 52.204-7 (NOV 2024) clearly
Cited 0 timesPublishedC.H. Guernsey & Co. v. United States
65 Fed. Cl. 582 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 29, 2005
According to Guernsey, the Government also failed to establish a meaningful standard of care and/or if so, the Government did not establish there was a breach caused by Guernsey’s negligence. Id. at 8-11. … Zahl testified that: • The H/600 lateral deflection stated in the Guernsey design plans and specifications is clearly within the tolerances normally specified for buildings that have a masonry veneer exterior wall tied to
Cited 4 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 21, 2022
The profile that established Mr. Pohl as “not qualified for deployment” expired one year later, on November 6, 1998. See AR 102, 144–46. … The AFBCMR clearly articulated the primary reason for denying Mr.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMvl USA, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 6, 2025
In Alphapointe, plaintiffs—two “qualified nonprofit agencies under the AbilityOne Program, a federal program that provides employment opportunities for people who are blind or have other severe disabilities”—had “for many … years, provided certain goods and services to the [VA] as a result of statutory preferences afforded to AbilityOne-qualified vendors.” 475 F.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 1, 2021
The Court is not entirely satisfied that the alleged representation by the VA that WWHS “would move forward with the solicitation” if it installed a fire alarm system qualifies as a procurement contract subject to the CDA … Even question five, with its assertion that Plaintiffs spent $10,000 to install the fire alarm system, does not clearly assert an “entitlement as a matter of right.”
Cited 0 timesPublishedCivatte v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 19, 2024
) to a petitioner’s burden to establish entitlement under the Vaccine Act. … As previously explained: [U]nder the Vaccine Act, the Program is the payor of ‘last resort,’ and may only award qualifying unreimbursed expenses.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna