Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.49s
3 Cl. Ct. 97 · United States Court of Claims · May 20, 1983
The court agreed that the government was immune from suit. … This provision clearly anticipates that there will be occasions when local standards will be stricter than the MPS and defers to those standards.
Cited 1 timesPublishedSmith & Son Manufacturing Co. v. United States
15 Ct. Cust. 277 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1927
It also held that the fact that this vaccine was a biological substance could make no difference, because it was a medicinal substance and therefore clearly within paragraph 23. … It is also true that an equally important purpose is to prevent disease by rendering the patient immune from its attack.
Cited 6 timesPublishedNational Medical Enterprises, Inc. v. United States
28 Fed. Cl. 540 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 9, 1993
As a public not-for-profit entity, the Authority qualified as an eligible entity under the Hill-Burton Act for financial assistance. … In applying this statutory provision, the Court of Claims established the standard of whether transfer of a case to a district court would further the “interest of justice.” Moss v.
Cited 8 timesPublishedTestimonial Immunity Before Congress of the Former Counsel to the President
Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · May 20, 2019
The Counsel to the President clearly qualifies as a senior adviser entitled to testimonial immunity. … Plainly, the Counsel to the President qualifies as an immediate adviser to the President.
Cited 0 timesPublished78 Fed. Cl. 294 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 31, 2007
The Sherman Act and the Civil Rights Act Plaintiffs Complaint does not indicate clearly his theory for relief against defendant. … Plaintiff qualifies as a prisoner under Section 1915A. 13 Plaintiffs Complaint meets both grounds for dismissal under Section 1915A. First, plaintiffs Complaint is frivolous.
Cited 41 timesPublishedSnyder v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
102 Fed. Cl. 305 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 28, 2011
Raymond, who the Special Master considered to be “the most qualified expert to express an opinion.” Id. at *14. … Wiznitzer was not better qualified to interpret the NCES study than Dr. Kinsbourne. Id.
Reversed by Snyder v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 553 F. App'x 994 (2014)Cited 13 timesPublishedInternational Electronics Corp. v. United States
646 F.2d 496 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 8, 1981
Clearly, however, the *229 liquidated damages clause in the IEC contract cannot reasonably be construed as a penalty. … Also, the evidence clearly established that the calibration technician qualifications had been stiffened in the IEC contract so as to eliminate loopholes that had allowed prior contractors to hire personnel of dubious ability
Cited 20 timesPublishedMountain Gateway Order, Inc. v. Virginia Community College System
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jun 6, 2024
Scripps Networks Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1020, 1022 (TTAB 2009) (entitlement established by introducing evidence of common-law use of petitioner’s mark). C. … labeled and numbered – use separator pages between exhibits and clearly label each exhibit using sequential letters or numbers; and 5) the entire submission should be text-searchable.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDepartment of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Jul 15, 2014
that immunity were qualified rather than absolute. … Simas’s immunity from congressional compulsion to testify, assuming that immunity were qualified rather than absolute.4 4 Even if it were appropriate to apply the Sealed Case standard for overcoming qualified
Cited 0 timesPublished9 T.C. 619 · United States Tax Court · Oct 9, 1947
The seat of the League was established at Geneva, Switzerland, and the permanent Secretariat was established there. … His first contention is that the definition of gross income contained in section 22 (a) does not clearly include the amounts received by him from the League.
Cited 17 timesPublishedRotoli v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
89 Fed. Cl. 71 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 2, 2009
Bellanti was a highly qualified expert witness whose extensive credentials are not in dispute. At the time of the hearings in this ease, Dr. … highly qualified expert such as Dr.
Reversed by Porter v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 663 F.3d 1242 (2011)Cited 25 timesPublishedDepartment of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Aug 12, 2024
Nor does it impose any caps on recoveries for past pecuniary costs, which clearly encompass healthcare costs. … immunity based on inferences from legislative history in the face of clear statutory direction waiving that immunity.”
Cited 0 timesPublishedLoving v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services
86 Fed. Cl. 135 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 4, 2009
In his view, both were qualified and credible witnesses. As the special master observed, “[b]oth parties’ presentations were strong.” Id. at * 10 . … Shuman explained, all DTaP vaccines “clearly state that seizure[s] are a contraindication.”
Cited 225 timesPublished109 Fed. Cl. 421 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 26, 2013
Frick qualified to testify; and that when respondent’s counsel chose to forego voir dire of Dr. Frick, the government waived all objections based on Dr. Frick’s competence --- including those based on Daubert. … See Tr. at 31-32. 16 Another record, quoted but not highlighted by petitioners, see Pet’rs’ Mot. at 3, is clearly of the same ilk. See Pet’rs’ Ex. 4 at 16-17 (record from Dr.
Cited 139 timesPublishedMountain Gateway Order, Inc. v. Virginia Community College System
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · Jun 6, 2024
Scripps Networks Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1020, 1022 (TTAB 2009) (entitlement established by introducing evidence of common-law use of petitioner’s mark). C. … labeled and numbered – use separator pages between exhibits and clearly label each exhibit using sequential letters or numbers; and 5) the entire submission should be text-searchable.
Cited 0 timesPublishedNew York and Presbyterian Hospital v. United States
128 Fed. Cl. 363 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 19, 2016
According to the government, section 3102(b) is an immunity provision. … provision and not money-mandating, the statute must be interpreted in a manner that does not waive sovereign immunity because waivers of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed.
Reversed by New York & Presbyterian Hospital v. United States, 881 F.3d 877 (2018)Cited 3 timesPublishedAgarwal v. Secretary of Health & Human Services
33 Fed. Cl. 482 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 9, 1995
Another, written immediately below the notation of the fourth immunization, states “child had another convulsion.” (Id.) … Finally — and the key question in most cases under the Program — the petitioner must also establish a link, either temporal or causal, between the vaccination and the injury.
Cited 0 timesPublished650 F.2d 291 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 19, 1980
It is fundamental that the "Court of Claims jurisdiction to grant relief depends wholly upon the extent to which the United States has waived its sovereign immunity to suit and that such waiver cannot be implied but must … We read the second sentence of the quoted ASPR section as qualifying the first sentence and creating an exception.
Cited 1 timesPublished131 Fed. Cl. 181 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 31, 2017
“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). A waiver of immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” … By comparison, avers the United States, any obligation it assumes is clearly articulated. Id. at 3.
Cited 4 timesPublishedGiorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States
804 F. Supp. 2d 1315 · United States Court of International Trade · Nov 17, 2011
II BACKGROUND In order to qualify for distributions under the CDSOA,1 an entity must qualify as an “affected domestic producer.” 19 U.S.C. § 1675c(a) (2000) (repealed … Cir. 2008) (“Given that the United States, and the agencies thereof, are cloaked in sovereign immunity, a party may only sue the United States for monetary damages when Congress has affirmatively waived the government’s immunity
Cited 4 timesPublished
Ask Donna