Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
1.72s
Chicago Milwaukee Corp. v. United States
29 Fed. Cl. 777 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 8, 1993
It is well established that suits in derogation of sovereign immunity must adhere strictly to the conditions by which the sovereign allows it. See, e.g., United States v. … Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Reynolds, 846 F.2d at 748 (citing cases).
Cited 5 timesPublishedSimanski ex rel. Simanski v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
96 Fed. Cl. 588 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 15, 2010
Maertens concluded that the “determination of whether the immunizations were a factor in the onset of GBS in a child who had an upregulated immune system from an infectious process is best made by an immunologist.” Id. … immunization (transfer of autoreactive-T cells or autoantibod-ies induce the disease).
Reversed on other grounds by SIMANSKI v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 671 F.3d 1368 (2012)Cited 10 timesPublished96 Fed. Cl. 302 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 21, 2010
regulations need not provide a second waiver of sovereign immunity, nor need they be construed in the manner appropriate to waivers of sovereign immunity.”). … as beneficiaries of the Appropriations Acts to the prejudice of the individuals who would have qualified as beneficiaries.
Cited 9 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 30, 2021
Plaintiff’s reference to “negligence and fraud[]” clearly demonstrates that her allegations arise squarely under tort or criminal law rather than under any contractual duty. See Waller v. United States, 767 Fed. … Plaintiff’s timely response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss also clearly indicates that Plaintiff received Defendant’s Motion. See generally Pl. Resp.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 23, 2015
Grady has failed to establish that his claims are within the jurisdiction of this Court. … While the govemment's arguments are not without some force, the Court finds it unnecessary to reach them, given its conclusion that it clearly lacks jurisdiction over the contract claims Mr.
Cited 0 timesPublished71 Fed. Cl. 687 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 30, 2006
Under the Tucker Act, sovereign immunity is waived for “any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or … employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance
Cited 44 timesPublishedHaddon Housing Associates, LLC v. United States
99 Fed. Cl. 311 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 24, 2011
Generally, a condition precedent “must be performed or happen before a duty of immediate performance arises on the promise which the condition qualifies.” … The Owner shall submit to HUD supporting data, financial statements and certifications which clearly support the increase.”); id. at 13 (§ 2.4(h)(1)) (listing the items the owner must submit with monthly requests for HAP
Cited 13 timesPublished110 Fed. Cl. 306 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 1, 2013
United States, 420 F.3d 1343 , the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit articulated the requirements for qualifying for the continuing claims doctrine, as follows: “In order for the continuing claim doctrine … Section 1498(b) “codifies a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for copyright infringement claims against the government and establishes this court as the exclusive forum to hear such claims.” Blueport Co., LLP v.
Cited 11 timesPublishedSystems Application & Technologies, Inc. v. United States
100 Fed. Cl. 687 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 9, 2011
Thus, SA-TECH has established a nontrivial competitive injury. … Baker, Inc., 32 F.3d 1552, 1556 (Fed.Cir.1994) (“A movant that clearly establishes likelihood of success on the merits receives the benefit of a presumption of irreparable harm.”), cited in CW Gov’t Travel, Inc. v.
Cited 54 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · May 30, 2018
Feiss failed to establish a valid claim for breach of implied contract. Id. at 9. In his Response, Dr. … Although the Tucker Act explicitly waives the sovereign immunity of the United States against such claims, it “does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages.”
Cited 0 timesPublishedAlaska Central Express, Inc. v. United States
51 Fed. Cl. 227 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 11, 2001
United States, 342 U.S. 25, 27 , 72 S.Ct. 17 , 96 L.Ed. 26 (1951) (“[Statutes which waive immunity of the United States from suit are to be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign.”); AFGE, 258 F.3d at 1301. 2 If the … Instead, plaintiff argues that the traditional requirement of actual and due money damages is qualified by the court’s jurisdiction over CDA cases under section 1491(a)(2).
Cited 13 timesPublishedInternational Genomics Consortium v. United States
104 Fed. Cl. 669 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 11, 2012
To qualify as an “interested party,” a protestor must establish that: (1) it was an actual or prospective bidder or offeror, and (2) it had a direct economic interest in the procurement or proposed procurement_Assuming that … IGC could not have submitted a qualifying proposal to do the work that SAIC-F was assigned and thus, unlike the protesters in Distributed Solutions, has not “established [itself] as [a] prospective bidder.”
Cited 11 timesPublishedJarvis v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services
99 Fed. Cl. 47 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 22, 2011
Tornatore’s theory [of causation] clearly passes Daubert muster” because the “principles and methods” that Dr. … Tornatore’s theory clearly passes Daubert muster in this regard.” Id. at 13.
Cited 33 timesPublishedDiversified Group Incorporated v. United States
123 Fed. Cl. 442 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 29, 2015
The threshold issue before the court is whether plaintiffs can establish this court’s jurisdiction. … There are limited circumstances in which a tax can be considered divisible and thus qualify as an exception to the full payment rule.
Cited 9 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 8, 2020
A plaintiff must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Taylor v. United States, 303 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). … It is well established that under the Tucker Act, “jurisdiction is confined to the rendition of money judgments in suits brought for that relief against the United States . . .
Cited 0 timesPublishedJ. Cooper & Associates, Inc. v. United States
47 Fed. Cl. 280 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 4, 2000
The letter contract contemplated performance of marketing and advertising tasks to increase public awareness of the INS and increase the number of qualified applicants. … Once jurisdiction is challenged by the court or the opposing party, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. McNutt v.
Cited 17 timesPublishedAmpersand Chowchilla Biomass, LLC v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 17, 2018
The Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity and provides this Court with jurisdiction over specific categories of claims against the United States, including those claims “founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of … “[O]ther tangible property” may only qualify for a Section 1603 grant if that property is “used as an integral part of the qualified investment credit facility,” and a “qualified investment credit facility” is one for which
Cited 0 timesPublished63 Fed. Cl. 468 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 12, 2005
For this court to have jurisdiction, the United States must waive its sovereign immunity, and the plaintiffs’ claims must be within the scope of that waiver. United States v. … NCS Pearson was awarded a contract in March 2002 by the Department of Transportation to help recruit, qualify, and hire the new federal workforce. Pis.' App. at 114-15.
Cited 20 timesPublishedMiles v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 22, 2019
The Special Master clearly engaged in such an analysis. … However, those rules, when read together, clearly place the burden on the petitioner to establish his case, before the respondent is required to refute it.
Cited 0 timesPublishedLiberty Ammunition, Inc. v. United States
101 Fed. Cl. 581 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 31, 2011
To establish subject matter jurisdiction over a suit against the federal government, a plaintiff must show both a “waiv[er of] sovereign immunity together with a claim falling within the terms of the waiver.” … At this stage of the litigation, the record does not permit the court to say conclusively whether Liberty qualifies for either of these exceptions.
Cited 15 timesPublished
Ask Donna