Case law

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.

Bailey Jr v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 21, 2021

In attempting to establish entitlement to a Vaccine Program award of compensation for a non-Table claim, a petitioner must satisfy all three of the elements established by the Federal Circuit in Althen v. … Petitioner’s Experts Are Not Qualified to Opine of the Issue of Diagnosis and Are Not Persuasive in Contending that Mr.

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.

Bath Iron Works Corp. v. United States

38 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,432 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 12, 1992

Accordingly, congressional consent to suit in this court, “thereby waiving the government’s traditional immunity, must be explicit and strictly construed.” Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. … As a general rule, the United States, as a sovereign entity, is “immune from suits save as it consents to be sued.” United States v.

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 26, 2025

These aspects are clearly quantitative in nature but ultimately inform a qualitative assessment. … It is well established that an agency cannot evaluate proposals on unstated criteria. See Banknote, 56 Fed.

Dawson v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 18, 2014

In establishing the [STEP] program, OPM did not intend to have STEP or SCEP students working on intermittent schedules. … While the Tucker Act constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity, it does not give rise to a substantive cause of action. See United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 216 (1983).

Curran v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

130 Fed. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 3, 2017

On October 27, 2016, petitioner filed his immunization records and other medical records, but stated that petitioner was still “in the process of obtaining remaining records.” … conclusion of the law;” (3) “clearly erroneous,” or (4) that “the record contains no evidence on which the ...

Telemaque v. United States

82 Fed. Cl. 624 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 28, 2008

Even if the complaint is not clearly articulated, a court must examine the pleadings to determine if there is a cause of action. Sumner v. United States, 71 Fed.Cl. 627, 628 (2006) (citing Hughes v. … A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed.Cir.1988).

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. United States

80 Fed. Cl. 340 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 31, 2008

B.2 UUA.1-8 (establishing Independent Petroleum Engineer Process for the Shallow Oil Zone) with Compl. Ex. B.2 UU B.l-11 (establishing Equity Redetermination Process). … Accordingly, the Government has the burden of proof to establish both of these elements.

Buckley v. United States

57 Fed. Cl. 328 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 19, 2003

Buckley clearly meets the applicable statutory standard. … As DEA investigators, DIs are clearly in the law enforcement or firefighting field and the DEA is clearly an organization having a law enforcement mission.

Jarvis v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 19, 2021

“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.” … It is well established, however, that racial discrimination claims, and other civil 2 Although Mr.

C.W. Over & Sons, Inc. v. United States

44 Fed. Cl. 18 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 20, 1999

Having failed to establish the requisite elements, plaintiff cannot invoke the doctrine of mutual mistake. … Both provisions provide for possible immunity and apply in the event that an immunity exists.

Executive Court Reporters, Inc. v. United States

29 Fed. Cl. 769 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 1, 1998

Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Reynolds, 846 F.2d at 748 (citing cases). … According to defendant, the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative instructed plaintiff to contact him daily because hearing needs were established on a daily basis. .

Sindram v. United States

67 Fed. Cl. 788 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 31, 2005

Opp. at 3. 9 To establish jurisdiction and standing in the United States Court of Federal Claims, Plaintiff must establish that it is a party to a contract with the Government or in privity therewith. … United States, 194 F.3d 1231, 1239 (Fed.Cir.1998) (“The effect of finding privity of contract between a party and the United States is to find a waiver of sovereign immunity.”).

Whitney Benefits, Inc. v. United States

31 Fed. Cl. 116 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 20, 1994

court’s view, this history of determining the parties’ relative interests cannot constitute an assignment of a claim for purposes of the Anti-Assignment Act or otherwise. 1 Thus, while recognizing that waivers of sovereign immunity … As the two suits are clearly premised on differing operative facts, defendant’s Section 1500 motion faffs based upon existing precedent.

Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 13, 2019

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.

Southern California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. United States

52 Fed. Cl. 444 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 25, 2002

Motion to Intervene RCFC Rule 24, which establishes intervention requirements, distinguishes between intervention of right and permissive intervention. … For purposes of this discussion, precision requires that the distinction between these ideas be clearly drawn.

Housing Authority of the City of Slidell

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 27, 2020

In sum, the FAC clearly alleges a contract with the government. … Rep. at 3 n.1, and, in any event, the FAC and the documents filed with the Court clearly establish that the HACS ACC is a government contract. See ECF Nos. 20-1, 20-2, 28-1, 29-1.

Horse v. United States

49 Fed. Cl. 419 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 17, 2001

Plaintiffs counter that the plain language of the CDA and its legislative history establish that their contracts are covered by the Act. … Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.” Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n v.