Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
1.56s
Etchegoinberry v. United States
114 Fed. Cl. 437 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 2013
Irrigated agriculture clearly is important to the economy of California and the Nation. … That would qualify under Mildenberger as a mitigating effort.” . Defendant also cites to the Ninth Circuit’s decision for the language that "we repeat Firebaugh I's holding that Interior is obliged to find a solution.
Cited 6 timesPublishedSupreme Foodservice Gmbh v. United States
109 Fed. Cl. 369 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 4, 2013
“Marginal” was used for a proposal that did “not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.” Id. … Under this provision, “[a] non-frivolous allegation of a statutory or regulatory violation in connection with a procurement or proposed procurement is sufficient to establish jurisdiction.”
Cited 73 timesPublishedBord v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 4, 2017
The fee applicant (whether a plaintiff or a defendant) must, of course, submit appropriate documentation to meet “the burden of establishing entitlement to an award.” … Harumi Jyonouchi, who recorded that A.B. experienced “[a]dverse reactions to immunization – adverse reactions to pneumovax.” (Ex. 8, p. 21, see also p. 26.) Further, immunologist Dr.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished72 Fed. Cl. 766 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 7, 2006
The Correctional Services Manual explains that post orders list “activities chronologically with responsibilities clearly defined.” PI. Supp.App. at 7. … The Institution Supplement states that its purpose is to “establish a schedule of regular meetings.” Def.App. at 173.
Cited 8 timesPublishedHickner v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 7, 2025
Dubey noted Petitioner’s “evaluations [were] concerning for sensory predominant immune mediated polyradiculoneuropathy” 16 and agreed with Dr. Tobin’s recommendation to begin IVIG treatment. Id. at 16. … Id. at 7–8 (citing Lewis & Muley at 3). 19 Respondent argues that Petitioner’s medical records “clearly and consistently document no neurological symptoms until August 2019, when [P]etitioner specifically state[d
Cited 0 timesUnpublished117 Fed. Cl. 466 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 25, 2014
In addition, as the Administrative Record reflects, the Service clearly intends to continue the practice of providing preferences to incumbent farmer-cooperators to avoid competition. Pl. … Consequently, both of the above-referenced sections of the Departmental Manual require that the Service conduct an objective review of the merits and rank qualified applicants, before 39 The Departmental
Vacated on other grounds by Hymas v. United States, 810 F.3d 1312 (2016)Cited 5 timesPublishedCencast Services, L.P. v. United States
94 Fed. Cl. 425 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 3, 2010
Allowing such a setoff would exceed the Government’s waiver of sovereign immunity for refund claims. 18 See Bear Valley Mut. Water Co. v. R.A. Riddell, 493 F.2d 948 , 952 & n. 8 (9th Cir.1974). … shifts to plaintiffs to establish the amount of the alleged overpayment and the resultant refund due to plaintiffs.
Cited 16 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 31, 2023
The party seeking a preliminary injunction bears the burden of establishing four factors. First, the moving party must establish that it is likely to succeed on the merits. … Because the first two factors for a preliminary injunction are not clearly met, other factors need not be addressed. See Amazon.com, 239 F.3d at 1350.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedBenefits Consulting Associates, LLC v. United States
93 Fed. Cl. 254 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 14, 2010
The Solicitation also allowed proposals to depart from stated requirements, but they must clearly identify why the acceptance would be “advantageous” to the SEC. AR at 84. … Although BCA proposed all unrated dental and vision providers, the financial data provided to the TEP continued that both would qualify as “A” rated or better. Id. at 4-6.
Cited 0 timesPublishedConstellation West, Inc. v. United States
125 Fed. Cl. 505 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 15, 2015
The revised Source Selection Plan established separate SSEBs for each of the evaluation factors. … and set 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
Cited 8 timesPublishedHudson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 28, 2016
furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly … Petitioner has not otherwise established in his fee request why $195 per hour is appropriate in this case.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedFrawner Corporation v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 8, 2022
Plaintiff’s contention is insufficient to establish disparate treatment. … The only rankings for which Defendant clearly documented best value tradeoffs were the highest and lowest ranked offers.
Cited 0 timesPublishedSchoeller v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 18, 2022
furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly … MMR immunization was administered in the upper portion of her left shoulder- Petitioner recollects the vaccine as being given higher up in her shoulder than normal. 2.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSarah E. Price Revocable Trust Dated June 30, 2014 v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 15, 2021
Plaintiff contends the lack of a warranty clause and imprecise description of the land in the Bearse deed clearly “indicates an easement.” Tr. at 40:4–20. … Plaintiff argues the reservation clause is important because “where deeds qualify how land will be used, it’s an easement,” and “[i]f it’s a fee grant, there’s no reason to specify how the land will be used.”
Cited 0 timesPublishedSt. Pierre v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 31, 2019
Additionally, it is firmly established that billing for clerical and other secretarial work is not permitted in the Vaccine Program. Rochester v. … Sheikh’s billing entries clearly reflect the work being performed. Accordingly, this cost shall be awarded in full. The undersigned also finds all of petitioner’s remaining costs to be reasonable.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedInsight Public Sector, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 1, 2022
The Solicitation clearly did not require the Navy to inspect Dell Marketing’s GSA Schedule. … It also clearly demonstrates that Insight knew how to properly allege a PIA violation.
Cited 0 timesPublishedNet Results, Inc. v. United States
112 Fed. Cl. 133 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 6, 2013
The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61. … Therefore, without the qualifying term “ranging,” claims 1 and 6 fail to describe “the location of the perceived object, such as by providing the distance to the object or its depth below ground.” Pl.
Cited 2 timesPublishedSpiller v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 12, 2025
area but qualifying for a limited exception and has not filed a civil suit or collected an award or settlement for his or her injury. … Entitlement Brief at 9.11 And what Petitioner was referring to was clearly her vaccination. Accordingly, Petitioner did in fact identify onset based on the date of vaccination as a reference point. Id.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedKellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States
107 Fed. Cl. 16 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 27, 2012
Check, Managing Director, Chess Consulting LLC, qualified as plaintiffs expert on the subjects of government contract cost and pricing and the application of the FAR to government contracts. See Tr. at 818-19 (court). … This, defendant argues, is implausible because CO 7 clearly stated that the SOW was unchanged from that in SK 466. See id. at 6-8.
Cited 4 timesPublishedTri-State Motor Transit Co. v. United States
39 Fed. Cl. 485 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 5, 1997
This general grant of jurisdiction to the ICC is qualified by other provisions in Subchapter II, Motor Carrier Transportation, and by other provisions of law. 4 Motor common carriers subject to the ICC are required to establish … Clearly, the court’s procedure in common carrier cases needs to be revised.
Cited 4 timesPublished
Ask Donna