Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,740 results
1.33s
121 Fed. Cl. 408 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 4, 2015
After receiving a copy via email on March 26, Saturday, I am disputing the provisions/agreeme'nt not clearly discussed in detail by my attorney, David Kornbluh. … actions were subject to immunity.
Cited 3 timesPublished67 Fed. Cl. 708 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 22, 2005
A credit under Code section 43 for qualifying EOR costs incurred pursuant to qualified EOR projects. We refer to the first eight of these issues as the “non-EOR” claims. … At the outset, we note that defendant urges that there is a fourth element required for a valid informal claim: an express waiver of sovereign immunity.
Cited 11 timesPublishedWhite v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 13, 2020
He suggested that the alum makes the immune system take the vaccine seriously. Id. While Dr. … He further observed that it takes three separate immunizations to achieve the strong immunity to the HPV 24 Integrins are heterodimeric transmembrane (two-chain) receptors that mediate cell-adhesion. 25 Nizar Souayah
Cited 0 timesPublished44 Fed. Cl. 528 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 2, 1999
The Tucker Act establishes the jurisdiction of this court. … Without an express waiver of sovereign immunity, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. Sovereign immunity is “strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in favor of the sovereign.”
Cited 14 timesPublishedNational Data Corp. v. United States
50 Fed. Cl. 24 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 23, 2001
Clearly, Congress could have passed a provision intended to benefit one or two taxpayers and incidentally benefitted others. … It also argued that, to qualify, the taxpayer must have agreed to lease the entire building.
Cited 10 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 10, 2018
Mohamad Taha was the owner of l0% of the stock of Atek Construction, Inc., a Califomia corporation qualified under Subchapter S ofthe Intemal Revenue Code, specifically 26 U.S.C. C'I.R.C.') $ 1361. … The plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing j urisdiction, see Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv.,846 F.2d 746,748 (Fed.
Cited 0 timesPublishedChuisano v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
116 Fed. Cl. 276 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 30, 2014
law; (3) . . . clearly erroneous; or (4) the record contains no evidence on which the . . . … Well-settled principles of sovereign immunity are also a consideration. Cloer II, 675 F.3d at 1367.
Cited 615 timesPublishedMaloney v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 11, 2022
4 Antigenic challenge by an antecedent infection or immunization leads to antigen-specific humoral and/or cellular immunity, and as such, this immune stimulation could theoretically result … The four criteria are (1) “establishment of an epidemiological association between the infectious agent and the immune-mediated disease;” (2) “identification of T cells or antibodies directed against the patient’s target
Cited 0 timesPublishedNutrite Corp. v. United States
43 Fed. Cl. 297 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 31, 1999
It is clearly established that the United States Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over tort claims. See Berdick v. United States, 222 Ct.Cl. 94, 100 , 612 F.2d 533, 536 (Ct.Cl.1979). … When privity of contract is present, there exists, “the type of direct, unavoidable contractual liability necessary to trigger a waiver of sovereign immunity....” Id.
Cited 1 timesPublishedUnited States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 9, 2017
Then, if it appears the soldier is not medically qualified to perform duty, the MTF commander will refer the soldier to a MEB. … was based on agency error, in order for a moving party to establish its status as a prevailing party.
Cited 0 timesPublishedAmerican Contractors Indemnity Company v. United States
111 Fed. Cl. 240 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 29, 2013
Because DiGiovanni could not otherwise qualify for the issuance of bonds, DiGiovanni was required to apply and qualify for participation in the SBA Bond Guarantee program, which DiGiovanni did. 2 Mot. 3. … Zwart possessed a valid power of attorney for the full amount of the bond (May 25, 2004), ACIC has not clearly established that this power of attorney is conclusively linked to the rider for the bonds.
Cited 0 timesPublishedFiltration Development Co., LLC v. United States
63 Fed. Cl. 612 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 14, 2005
California Marine Cleaning, 43 Fed.Cl. at 725 (“[The plaintiff] was clearly the prevailing party in that it obtained injunctive relief in this bid protest proceeding.”); PCI/RCI v. … If that is to be so, the exception for “limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved” must refer to “qualified for the proceedings” in some specialized sense, rather than just in their general
Cited 17 timesPublished129 Fed. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 25, 2016
and appoint qualified individuals to medical residencies and internships. … Because none of these three elements is present in 38 U.S.C. § 7406, the court finds that the statute grants the Secretary of the VA discretion as to whether to establish medical residencies, who among qualified applicants
Cited 11 timesPublishedDecisionpoint Corporation v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 14, 2025
The procurement was set aside for offerors that qualified as “Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses” under NAICS Code 541614 (“qualified small businesses”). AR 381, 1272; see also 13 C.F.R. § 128.401. … P&S was a qualified small business, but Oryza was not. See AR 124.
Cited 0 timesPublishedJohnson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 12, 2021
that leads to immune-protection.” … The petition clearly states that Petitioner suffered from headaches. Pet. at 1.
Cited 0 timesPublished35 Fed. Cl. 309 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 1, 1996
No provision in plaintiffs’ leases even alludes to the government’s claimed ability to unilaterally modify or circumvent, with impunity, long established and respected POE approval and permit acquisition procedures established … If all government actions qualified as sovereign acts, the government would be able to abrogate all of its public contracts without risk of liability for damages. See United States v.
Reversed by Marathon Oil Company and Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States, 177 F.3d 1331 (1999)Cited 24 timesPublishedCarter v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 4, 2018
It also notes that despite not receiving immunizations according to the regular schedule, she was current on her immunizations. Id. … , and interruption in the normal/typical immunization schedule.”
Cited 0 timesPublished42 Fed. Cl. 568 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 9, 1998
The burden of establishing jurisdiction is on the plaintiff. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Indiana, 298 U.S. 178, *573 189 , 56 S.Ct. 780 , 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936); Alaska v. … The individual claimants, therefore, must look beyond the jurisdictional statute for a waiver of sovereign immunity. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. at 398 , 96 S.Ct. 948 .
Cited 5 timesPublishedEstate of Rubinstein v. United States
96 Fed. Cl. 640 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 31, 2011
United States, 62 Fed.Cl. 109, 114 (2004) (indicating that good cause is established “by specifically demonstrating that ‘disclosure will cause a clearly defined and serious injury* ” (quoting Glenmede Trust Co. v. … “To be eligible, the taxpayer must present proof of a qualifying impairment in the form and manner specified by the Secretary.”
Cited 12 timesPublished87 Fed. Cl. 397 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 21, 2009
The Tucker Act concurrently “waives the Government’s sovereign immunity for those actions.” Id. … If the provision relied upon is found to be money-mandating, the plaintiff need not rely upon a waiver of sovereign immunity beyond the Tucker Act. Huston v.
Cited 6 timesPublished
Ask Donna