Case law

Brown v. United States

32 Fed. Cl. 509 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 28, 1994

Fiduciary Relationship Between the United States and the Indians In order to state a claim for money damages in this court, plaintiffs must demonstrate that “the statutes and regulations at issue in this case clearly establish … Part 162 does not create a regulatory scheme with sufficiently pervasive and comprehensive authority that it clearly and unambiguously establishes full fiduciary obligations in the United States.

Double Lion Uchet Express Trust v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 16, 2021

Also typical of Moorish sovereign citizen litigants is the practice of creating documents purporting to establish various legal rights. … “The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). The waiver of immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.”

Refaei v. United States

129 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

Clayton v. United States

33 Fed. Cl. 628 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 30, 1995

Plaintiffs have not met their burden of proof to establish that the alleged stock distribution in this case qualifies as an actual distribution under section 402(a)(1). See supra pp. 14-17. … Citing I.R.C. § 871(f) and Rev.Rul. 56-125 as authority, the IRS in 1979 published Rev.Rul. 79-388, which reiterated the situs of the trust source rule for qualified plan earnings first established in 1952 by IR-Mim. 71.

Hopkins v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services

84 Fed. Cl. 530 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 1, 2008

receiving her immunizations. … Not one of the experts could do other than theorize to establish more precise timing.

Schmidt v. United States

89 Fed. Cl. 111 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 16, 2009

The Tucker Act is the primary statute establishing the jurisdiction of the court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (a)(1) (2006). … The Tucker Act provides the waiver of sovereign immunity necessary to sue the United States for money damages, but a plaintiff must establish an independent substantive right to money damages from the United States, that

BASR Partnership Ex Rel. Pettinati v. United States

130 Fed. Cl. 286 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 31, 2017

The taxpayer, however, need not establish the first two requirements, if it made a “qualified 6 offer” to the Government prior to the entry of a final judgment and that … Pettinati, Jr.’s practice to clearly indicate 9 as much in the signature block, which is what he did when he signed the BASR Partnership Agreement as trustee.

Jones v. United States

122 Fed. Cl. 490 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 30, 2015

Nevertheless, accepting plaintiffs’ allegations as true, allegations (i) and (iv) qualify as potential, cognizable “wrongs” under the 1868 Treaty. … Originals, Inc., 342 F.3d at 1323. 30 Although not clearly established by the Tenth Circuit, other federal appellate courts have made clear that issue preclusion applies to summary judgment decisions, and the summary judgment

Yost v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 8, 2021

Cagle stated that, “The images for this case clearly show the injection site to be below the level of the CDC recommended area and clearly more than 3 cm from the acromion.” Id. … Respondent’s arguments Respondent argues that petitioner has not established “the requisite facts to establish entitlement to compensation for a Table SIRVA.” Resp. Brief at 9.

Kellett v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 12, 2021

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 … Temporal proximity between vaccination and onset of symptoms is a necessary component in establishing causation in non-Table cases, but without more, temporal proximity alone “fails to establish a reasonable basis for a vaccine

Ambase Corp. v. United States

61 Fed. Cl. 794 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 31, 2004

The analogy of this case to First Hartford is not very persuasive, as the “manifest conflict of interest” contemplated by First Hartford is not as clearly present in this case. … It has only been allowed in cases where the Constitution has clearly given the power exclusively to either the Congress or the President.

Ellis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 5, 2018

“Neurons are formed from about 8 weeks gestational age until 16 to 20 weeks (exact timing is not clearly established); their migration to the cerebral cortex continues until about 24 to 26 weeks and is followed by a period … These changes clearly predate his immunization.” Id. at 3. Dr.

IHS Global Inc. v. United States

106 Fed. Cl. 734 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 16, 2012

Here, “to establish standing to protest a sole-source award, ‘a bidder must show that it would have been a qualified bidder.’ ” Defense Tech., Inc. v. … The Administrative Record clearly establishes that, by its own assessment, IHS/ARINC does not currently possess a tool that is immediately capable, as the Air Force requires, of managing and processing at least six essential

Carter 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.”

Osage Tribe of Indians v. United States

68 Fed. Cl. 322 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 27, 2005

While the Tucker Acts provide the “clear statement from the United States waiving sovereign immunity” required to establish jurisdiction over a suit against the government, United States v. … Because the statutes and regulations at issue here clearly establish a fidueiary duty to verify that lessees fulfill their contractual obligations to the Tribe by verifying the accuracy of payments made, the court finds that

American Renovation & Construction Co. v. United States

45 Fed. Cl. 44 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 22, 1999

They were clearly not the functional equivalent of the specified product. The Navy did not need Siplast to point this out. … Citing evidence which in fact stands for exactly the opposite of the proposition is either careless or foolhardy, but in either case qualifies for the Court of Federal Claims’ Chutzpah Championship.

Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 9, 2020

The Supreme Court established in Lebron v. … Second, plaintiffs have not asserted claims that qualify as both direct and derivative based on the dual-nature exception.

Allred v. United States

33 Fed. Cl. 349 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 9, 1995

Case law clearly establishes that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment “neither explicitly nor implicitly obligate[s] the federal government to pay damages.” United States v. … The case at bar clearly falls under the Mitchell I rather than the Mitchell II rationale.

Weston Solutions, Inc. v. United States

95 Fed. Cl. 311 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 25, 2010

Ratings for all six highly qualified firms were demarcated on a score sheet clearly labeled “Final” as follows: Board Member [Member 1] [Member 2] [Member 3] [Firm A ] Excellent + Excellent + Excellent + [Finn E ] Good o … In addition, to prevail in an action such as this, a party must also establish that it has been prejudiced by the agency decision it is challenging.

Swaiss v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 4, 2019

Respondent contended that if petitioner did not establish that he suffered the injury alleged, petitioner failed to establish any of the Althen prongs. Id. at 27-36. … disease, immune-modulatory treatment is indicated.