Case law

Farmer v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 31, 2019

guardian of this immunity, has declined to do so’” (quoting Sanborn v. … Plaintiffs, for example, clearly label Counts III-VI as their “contract claims.” ECF No. 12 at 34.

Addison International, Inc. v. Commissioner

90 T.C. 1207 · United States Tax Court · Jun 21, 1988

Because the handbook clearly promised that adverse treatment would not be retroactively applied, petitioner maintains that its rebanee on the handbook immunizes it from retroactive appbeation. … Memo. 1983-56 , 45 T.C.M. 607 , 52 P-H Memo T.C. par 83,056 (1983), we followed the precedent established prior to the recent disagreement among the circuits, citing to our opinion in CWT Farms, Inc. v.

California Canners & Growers Ass'n v. United States

7 Cl. Ct. 69 · United States Court of Claims · Dec 14, 1984

Because it is clearly akin to sovereign immunity, we must also examine a concept referred to as “governmental privilege”. … The Government is not only protected from suit by the doctrine of sovereign immunity but is also shielded from liability by unique absolute or qualified governmental privileges.

Dms Imaging, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 27, 2015

“If a reasonable probability of damage can be clearly established, uncertainty as to the amount will not preclude recovery.” Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. v. Barram, 226 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quoting Locke v. … The frustration of purpose doctrine is clearly inapplicable here.

W.C. v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

100 Fed. Cl. 440 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 22, 2011

C. must establish six elements. As this court explained in Loving v. … An autoimmune disease is "a disorder caused by an immune response directed against self-antigens.” Dorland's at 536.

Zoltek Corp. v. United States

51 Fed. Cl. 829 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 14, 2002

In 1990, Congress passed the Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act 16 that amended the patent code to clearly state Congress’s intention to abrogate state sovereign immunity as a defense to patent infringement … Fifth Amendment and Sovereign Immunity Under the principles of sovereign immunity, the government must give its consent in order to be sued.

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians v. United States

67 Fed. Cl. 695 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 16, 2005

The Cherokee Nation rightfully claims that under established precedent, Choctaw Nation v. … The court also finds that this dismissal qualifies as a final judgment sufficient to trigger the release of funds to the Cherokee Nation’s tribal trust account pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1779f(b)(3).

Stevens v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services

31 Fed. Cl. 12 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 25, 1994

R.Civ.P. 15(c), also would not allow the instant petition to qualify within the Vaccine Act statute of limitations. RUSCFC 15(c) provides: (c) Relation Back of Amendments. … The Vaccine Act establishes a government waiver of sovereign immunity with regard to suits involving alleged vaccine induced injuries due to a vaccination in eases which comply with the statute.

Certified Blood Donor Services, Inc. v. United States

511 F.2d 572 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1975

Eitzmann, M.D., established that the imported serums (also known as antisera) are manufactured in the following manner. … That passage clearly demonstrates that the scope of item 437.76 was intended to “substantially correspond with the scope of the licensing requirements of the Public Health Service * * * applicable to the importation of certain

Orzechowski v. Commissioner

69 T.C. 750 · United States Tax Court · Feb 22, 1978

On the other hand, if excess contributions were willfully made, the value of the account was taxable to the contributor, and he could not establish another qualified IRA for a period of 5 years. … In the absence of a constitutional objection, our responsibility is to carry out the legislative purpose which has been clearly set forth.

Day v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 7, 2015

He testified, “Clearly, there are genes that are predisposing her family to autoimmunity, [so] that their immune system is more likely to attack self-antigens” than someone else’s immune system. Tr. 130. … Leist, one of the Group’s individual participants worked in the CDC’s immunization office, and each of the Group’s members is a well-qualified pediatric and public health specialist.

Schick v. United States

533 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · United States Court of International Trade · Dec 18, 2007

, “[t]he United States, as a sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued . . . .” … Plaintiffs point to a sentence in the House report which states that “‘[s]ection 206 [of the 1984 Act] makes conforming changes to other provisions of law to clearly establish that the Court of International Trade has exclusive

Acker v. United States

23 Cl. Ct. 803 · United States Court of Claims · Sep 13, 1991

The statute of limitations defines the time period during which Congress has waived sovereign immunity so as to permit suit against the government in the Claims Court. … First, if the Hart court intended to overrule such long-established precedent, it presumably would have made such an intent clear. It did not.

Petersen v. Comm'r

148 T.C. No. 22 · United States Tax Court · Jun 13, 2017

• Petitioners contend that ESOPs are subject only to the provisions of sub- chapter D (governing retirement and other qualified plans) and hence are immune from the operation of subchapter B (governing computation … Petitioners and Petersen are clearly subject to sub- chapter B.

VGS Corp. v. United States Department of Energy

808 F.2d 842 · Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals · Nov 28, 1986

First, DOE contends that under the doctrine of sovereign immunity it is entirely immune from any claim of prejudgment interest. … The stringency of the rule is clearly apparent in the Court’s most recent discussion of the rule in Library of Congress v. Shaw, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 2957 , 92 L.Ed.2d 250 (1986).

Cucuras v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human Services

26 Cl. Ct. 537 · United States Court of Claims · Jul 10, 1992

The second page of this entry states, “DTP and OPV 4 weeks ago (had immunizations 1 week prior to onset of the spell).” … Then you turn over to page 247 and it says under the plan section, ITem 5, “Consult parents further re: DPT immunizations and onset of first seizures, and consider advising against further immunizations of DPT.”

Doe/17 v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

84 Fed. Cl. 691 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 16, 2008

The first dispute is whether Jane Doe/17 suffered from an immune deficiency before getting the varicella vaccinations. The particular immune deficiency alleged by petitioner is Common Variable Immunodeficiency (CVID). … This emailed comment does not qualify as expert opinion, medical record of a diagnosis, or scientific literature.

Biagioli v. United States

2 Cl. Ct. 304 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 18, 1983

Plaintiff, moreover, does not dispute defendant’s assertion that his veteran’s preference fails to augment his creditable service or qualify him for permanent status. … Bergland, 607 F.2d 1090, 1092 (5th Cir.1979) (probationary employee who brought suit based on violation of first and fifth amendment rights denied relief as to liberty claims, because the lower court’s conclusion was not clearly

Short v. United States

37 Fed. Cl. 132 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 17, 1996

In the Distribution Order that established the Short Judgment Account, dated December 21, 1995, this Court made clear that “[t]he principal amount held in the ‘Short Judgment Account’ shall retain its character as federal … Thus, the custodia legis doctrine is clearly applicable in the present case.

Perfectus Aluminum, Inc. v. United States

391 F. Supp. 3d 1341 · United States Court of International Trade · Jul 1, 2019

Cir. 2005) (“Courts are not free to infer waivers of sovereign immunity.”) (citing Library of Cong. v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310, 318 (1986)). … Where a waiver of sovereign immunity is at issue, the language of the statute must be strictly construed, and any ambiguities resolved in favor of immunity.