Case law

Fields v. United States

39 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,580 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 1993

United States, 26 Cl.Ct. 248, 250 (1992), Judge Nettesheim stated that: The purpose of the EAJA is to lift the “bar of sovereign immunity for award of fees in suits brought by litigants qualifying under the statute.” … affidavit is clearly insufficient); United States v.

Uniband, Inc. v. Commissioner

140 T.C. 230 · United States Tax Court · May 22, 2013

Thus, TMBCI did not establish Uniband by itself; at its inception Uniband was simply a business owned in part by TMBCI and was clearly ‘‘a separate … Even under more expansive standards, Uniband has failed to establish that it would be entitled to sovereign immunity.

Scott v. United States

432 F.2d 1388 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 16, 1970

With this finding the Government concurs, and has now conceded that, absent the privileges and immunities accorded under the treaty, both Scott and Warnick would be qualified for the benefits of § 911(a) (1). … Eeg. § 1.911-1 (a) (2)] does not clearly provide any such requirement.

Gray v. United States

69 Fed. Cl. 95 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 6, 2005

Gray, as the plaintiff, has the burden of establishing the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over her claims. See McNutt v. … However, “[i]n light of [the Court’s] established practice of construing waivers of sovereign immunity narrowly in favor of the sovereign,” the Court held that the Federal Government had not waived its immunity against monetary

Cook v. Brown

6 Vet. App. 226 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 16, 1994

States Court of Veterans Appeals, established under Article I of the U.S. … United States, 948 F.2d 711, 714 (Fed.Cir.1991) (“EAJA provides a specific waiver of sovereign immunity ... ”).

Athey v. United States

123 Fed. Cl. 42 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 31, 2015

“Pay, Allowances, or Differentials” Even if plaintiffs qualify as “employee[s]” who suffered an “unjustified or unwarranted personnel action,” they can only recover under the Back Pay Act if they also establish that … Under well-established principles of sovereign immunity, waivers of sovereign immunity cannot be implied, and ambiguities must be construed in favor of the United States.

Quarles Petroleum Co. v. United States

551 F.2d 1201 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 23, 1977

The facts in the instant case clearly demonstrate that the plaintiffs through their own actions were liable for the costs resulting from the clean up operations. … It is well established and readily admitted by this court that statutes waiving the immunity of the United States must be strictly construed. 6 But just as impelling is the duty of this court to follow the intent of the Congress

Waleryszak v. Secretary of the Department Health & Human Services

45 Fed. Cl. 573 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 15, 1999

Petitioners have since conceded that no Table Injury may be established. See discussion infra Part III of Discussion. … The record clearly shows that Dr. Sladky has a well established record of diagnosing neurological diseases, has written numerous medical literature on the subject matter, and is a board certified pediatric neurologist.

Contreras v. United States

64 Fed. Cl. 583 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 31, 2005

And finally, they claim that once Customs established an FLPA program under section 4523, its discretion to refuse to award FLPAs to otherwise qualified law enforcement officers ceased. See Pis.’ Corr. … Plaintiffs, however, also argue, citing Fisher I, that White Mountain Apache “established] a new test for determining whether a statute is money-mandating,” and that “[t]he new test clearly lowers the threshold fo[r] establishing

Minehan v. United States

75 Fed. Cl. 249 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 26, 2007

Plaintiffs effort to establish an exception to the writing requirement as a result of that phraseology is, however, untenable. … The Supreme Court has stated clearly that no such tolling is permitted.

Ezenia!, Inc. v. United States

80 Fed. Cl. 60 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 4, 2008

It is clear to the Court that even though Ezenia states clearly that it *62 is not challenging the Army’s decision to standardize, that is exactly what Ezenia is challenging. … Ezenia is a qualified vendor on the FSS. However, Ezenia does not sell the Adobe Breeze product.

Novacor Chemicals, Inc. v. United States

21 Ct. Int'l Trade 1102 · United States Court of International Trade · Sep 25, 1997

“In the absence of express congressional consent to the award of interest separate from a general waiver of immunity to suit, the United States is immune from an interest award.” Library of Congress v. … In general retroactivity is not favored in the law, and, accordingly, legislation will be construed to operate only prospectively unless Congress has clearly expressed a contrary intention. Travenol Labs., Inc. v.

Depena v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

133 Fed. Cl. 535 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 9, 2017

Immunologists generally divide the immune system into two branches: the innate immune system and the adaptive immune system. Innate Immune System. … The special master qualified Dr. Lokshin as an expert in pediatric pulmonology and declared that Dr.

Sallee v. United States

42 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,352 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 28, 1998

In 1992 DOE established a Cost Reduction Proposal program (“CRP program”) with WSRC. … A third-party beneficiary need not be specifically or individually identified in the contract, but must fall within a class that the contract clearly intends to benefit. See Montana, 124 F.3d at 1273 .

Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United States

60 Fed. Cl. 611 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 19, 2004

With exceptions not herein relevant, see, e.g., 13 U.S.C. § 9 (a) (2000) (certain census reports "shall be immune from legal process, and shall not, without the consent of the individual or establishment concerned, be admitted … By comparison, many other well-established privileges may be overcome by a showing of strong need. See, e.g., Zenith Radio Corp. v.

Wilson v. Principi

16 Vet. App. 509 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 12, 2002

“EAJA is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity.” Cook v. Brown, 68 F.3d 447, 450 (1995). … It “lifts the bar of sovereign immunity for award of fees in suits brought by litigants qualifying under the statute,' but does so only to the extent explicitly and unequivocally provided.” Id.

Sacco v. United States

63 Fed. Cl. 424 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 30, 2004

Sacco was not a “prevailing party” under federal fee-shifting statutes as established by Buckhannon. … Here, the MSPB and the Federal Circuit clearly have jurisdiction over the “subject matter” of Plaintiffs’ underlying adverse personnel actions, a suspension and a removal.

Johnston v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services

22 Cl. Ct. 75 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 19, 1990

The petitioner’s duty is to establish the seven factors of section 300aa-ll(c)(l), including the timing of the first symptom, and to substantiate his case with medical records *77 or medical opinions. 42 U.S.C.A. § 300aa- … West in 1841, well before any immunization scheme in the United States.” (footnote omitted).

District of Columbia v. United States

67 Fed. Cl. 292 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 26, 2005

Indeed, it would be illogical for there to be language in the Act to limit reimbursement to only forty-eight hours’ worth of treatment when clearly there is no language which limits the treatment of qualifying patients under … “Waivers of immunity from interest must be clearly stated in the language of the statute.” Id. at 712.

Snyder ex rel. Snyder v. Secretary of Health & Human Services

88 Fed. Cl. 706 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 11, 2009

However, the special master clearly stated that because Dr. … A qualified expert with lesser qualifications may offer an opinion that, for a variety of reasons, is more persuasive than that of a more qualified expert testifying on behalf of an opposing party.