Case law

Calvin v. United States

63 Fed. Cl. 468 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 12, 2005

For this court to have jurisdiction, the United States must waive its sovereign immunity, and the plaintiffs’ claims must be within the scope of that waiver. United States v. … NCS Pearson was awarded a contract in March 2002 by the Department of Transportation to help recruit, qualify, and hire the new federal workforce. Pis.' App. at 114-15.

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

18 Cl. Ct. 828 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 17, 1989

However, the burden should be on counsel in these cases to establish a reasonable rate. This is best accomplished by the establishment of a lodestar rate and a requirement that counsel justify a higher rate. … The court does not feel that $75 per hour is inadequate or unreasonable in the context of the record in this case as it relates to the establishment of liability and to the establishment of a reasonable hourly rate for services

Miles v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 22, 2019

The Special Master clearly engaged in such an analysis. … However, those rules, when read together, clearly place the burden on the petitioner to establish his case, before the respondent is required to refute it.

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

19 Cl. Ct. 395 · United States Court of Claims · Feb 8, 1990

Davis’ opinion that the pertussis immunization was the cause of Mark’s problems. Ex. D. Records of Children’s Hospital show a final diagnosis of “acute Encephalopathy due to pertussis immunication.” Ex. … Weaver and petitioner are sufficient to establish the fact of immunication. Moreover, the subsequent hospital records refer back to it. This satisfies the requirements of § 11(c)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. 2.

Liberty Ammunition, Inc. v. United States

101 Fed. Cl. 581 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 31, 2011

To establish subject matter jurisdiction over a suit against the federal government, a plaintiff must show both a “waiv[er of] sovereign immunity together with a claim falling within the terms of the waiver.” … At this stage of the litigation, the record does not permit the court to say conclusively whether Liberty qualifies for either of these exceptions.

Estate of Rinaldi v. United States

38 Fed. Cl. 341 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 11, 1997

Specifically, defendant argues that the Trust established by Rinaldi’s will did not give rise to the “qualifying income interest for life” to which the surviving spouse must be entitled in order to qualify under § 2056(b) … And Rinaldi clearly intended to establish the trust with a condition that would render it ineligible for QTIP treatment.

The Haskell Company

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · May 5, 2026

On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the prime’s certification was “valid and not so qualified as to make it ineffective” and concluded that the certification “clearly complied with the chief policy underlying the CDA … In Transamerica, the qualifying language was in a cover letter accompanying the claim. 973 F.2d at 1580. Here, we do not have a CDA-compliant prime certification that is qualified.

Associated Hospital Services, Inc. v. Commissioner

74 T.C. 213 · United States Tax Court · May 6, 1980

The Senate version of the above bill would have treated virtually all entities established by tax-exempt hospitals as charitable organizations. … establishes its own laundry facilities and sells service to other hospitals.

Berenholz v. United States

1 Cl. Ct. 620 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 23, 1982

This is significant because it clearly establishes the necessity of the Corps to closely monitor the repairs made to plaintiff’s east dike under the un *631 precedented flooding conditions which existed in the spring of 1973 … In addition, since this case involves a taking, the question of § 702c immunity does not arise.

Kramer v. Comm'r

80 T.C. 768 · United States Tax Court · Apr 25, 1983

Did they qualify as "earned income”? … QUALIFIED PENSION, PROFIT-SHARING, AND STOCK BONUS PLANS.

Pelton & Crane Co. v. Commissioner

20 T.C. 967 · United States Tax Court · Sep 10, 1953

In view of the fact that petitioner has not established that it qualifies for relief under section 722 (b) (1) and (4), it is unnecessary to consider its method of reconstructing average base period net income. … (a) General Rule. — In any case In which the taxpayer establishes that the tax computed under this subchapter (without the benefit of this section) results in an excessive and discriminatory tax and establishes what would

Hirsch v. United States

94 Ct. Cl. 602 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 3, 1941

foremen were qualified, capable, and efficient. … The fact of responsibility for the excess costs is clearly established. The fact that plaintiff sustained damages is-also clearly established.

White v. Commissioner

28 T.C. 234 · United States Tax Court · Apr 30, 1957

This, however, is merely one qualifying factor under section 722 (b) .(4). … To qualify for relief under section 722 White must show not only that its average base period net income is an inadequate standard of normal earnings, but must also establish what would be a fair and just amount representing

Cedar Chemical Corp. v. United States

18 Cl. Ct. 25 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 18, 1989

Rather, EPA promises to expedite its determination that plaintiff qualifies under FIFRA for indemnification. … In the absence of express Congressional consent to award interest separate from a general waiver of immunity to suit, the United States is immune to suit for interest. Library of Congress v.

Krauss v. United States

40 Fed. Cl. 834 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 7, 1998

Discussion This Court follows well-established principles in reviewing military pay cases. … The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing such an infirmity in the BCNR decision with “cogent and clearly convincing evidence.” Dodson v.

Union Oil Co. v. United States Department of Energy

688 F.2d 797 · Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 1982

The Order does not abrogate the right that accrued to a firm to establish prices for crude oil prior to January 28,1981. … Thus, a firm may become a qualified producer as defined in 10 C.F.R. 212.78(c) on or after January 28, 1981.

Authority of Indian Tribal Court to Issue Garnishment Writs Under 42 U.S.C. § 662(e)

Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · Feb 28, 1980

In our opinion, a tribal court that establishes garnishment procedures may qualify as a court of com­ petent jurisdiction if it had the power to issue the underlying judgment awarding child support or alimony. … In 1975, Congress waived the sovereign immunity of the United States in proceedings for enforcement of writs of garnishment -issued to enforce orders for child support or alimony. Pub. L.

Florida Power Corp. v. United States

33 Fed. Cl. 107 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 29, 1995

The Mitchell II court stated: Because the statutes and regulations at issue in this case clearly establish fiduciary obligations of the Government in the management and operation of Indian lands and resources, they can fairly … Consequently, Mitchell II clearly is distinguishable from the facts presented by plaintiff Florida Power.

Frazier-Davis Construction Co. v. United States

100 Ct. Cl. 120 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 4, 1943

The essential facts as established by the evidence of record and pertinent to the issues presented are set forth in the findings. … The proof shows very clearly that no one representing defendant had knowledge of any particular facts concerning labor to be used in performance of the contract which were hot known or available to 'bidders, including plaintiff

Ward v. United States

89 Fed. Cl. 463 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 16, 2009

The waiver of immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 , 89 S.Ct. 1501 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969). … A finding that a soldier’s injury was sustained in the line of duty is a prerequisite for the soldier to qualify for related benefits, such as incapacitation pay.