Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.50s
318 F.2d 932 · United States Court of Claims · Jun 21, 1963
The purchase orders issued by Rice to cover these transactions clearly indicated that the items ordered therein were to be used for the execution of contract NObs-3572. … True, it is established by law, but it is affixed to, and cannot exist without a contract.” [Fuller v. Nickerson, 69 Me. 228, 236 (1879).] 2 .
Cited 6 timesPublishedTompkins v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
117 Fed. Cl. 713 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 27, 2014
Pike, she concluded that Petitioner could not establish that Dr. Pike’s theory was probable. … The latter set of vaccinations was administered too close in time to the onset of 9 To establish a legal cause in an off-Table case, petitioners must establish each of the three Althen factors by
Cited 54 timesPublished87 T.C. 1329 · United States Tax Court · Dec 22, 1986
Clearly, the occurrence of the conversion events was, while not certain, very likely. … The larger amount clearly exceeded the fair market value of the rights the partnerships received.
Cited 59 timesPublished99 Fed. Cl. 377 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 10, 2011
Plaintiffs claim under § 2302(b)(12) is not sufficient to establish jurisdiction in this court. … The language of § 1103 is not “money-mandating” for the purposes of establishing jurisdiction in this court.
Cited 4 timesPublished27 I. & N. Dec. 818 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2020
analysis, the asylum applicant can rebut the DHS’s prima facie evidence of an offer of firm resettlement by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that such an offer has not, in fact, been made or that he or she would not qualify … We are not persuaded that the Immigration Judge clearly erred in making findings of fact regarding the autonomous police force’s ability and willingness to control these private actors.
Cited 7 timesPublishedWalters v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 15, 2026
Although clearly easier to meet than the preponderant standard required for compensation, “courts have struggled with the nature and quantum of evidence necessary to establish a reasonable basis.” Wirtshafter v. … However, Petitioner later returned to the pharmacy and obtained an undated, uncertified “Immunization Services School Immunization Notification Form” (“School Immunization Form”) from a different pharmacist purporting to
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMurphy v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
128 Fed. Cl. 348 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 15, 2016
Zimmerman was not qualified to testify about mitochondrial disease. Id. at 14-15. … Zimmerman Was Not Qualified To Testify About Mitochondrial Disease The special master also reasonably found that Dr.
Cited 13 timesPublishedMobley ex rel. Mobley v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services
22 Cl. Ct. 423 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 18, 1991
A qualified petitioner who receives an injury listed on the Vaccine Injury Table, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-14(a) (Table), within the time period prescribed by the Table is entitled to compensation unless a preponderance of the evidence … Borkowf, a pediatric neurologist, recorded that she did “not know when Joshua first manifested symptoms of encephalopathy following his second DPT immunization.
Cited 8 timesPublished597 F.2d 1337 · United States Court of Claims · Apr 18, 1979
While not expressly stating that the United States held the land as trustee, Congress clearly contemplated that this land have the same status as reservation lands. … Congress need not expressly use a talismanic phrase such as "trust relationship” or "hold in trust” in order to establish a trust relationship. See Cherry v. United States, 219 Ct.
Cited 12 timesPublished5 T.C. 1289 · United States Tax Court · Dec 21, 1945
That the residuary legatee qualifies as a charitable institution under the above section, is not questioned by the respondent. … Clearly, this presented no fixed standard such as was present in the Ithaca Trust Co. case. The term “proper” is not one of exactitude.
Cited 14 timesPublishedAquaterra Contracting, Inc. v. United States
113 Fed. Cl. 644 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 22, 2013
In order to overcome the statutory prohibition established in 33 U.S.C. § 624(a)(2), AquaTerra makes two main arguments. … Only if the statutes are “irreconcilably conflicting,” id. at 266 n.146, or the “later one . . . is 9 clearly intended as a substitute,” Posadas v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedHalverson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 2, 2020
As explained fully and in detail below, petitioner has established that the high-dose flu vaccine received by Mrs. … Murphy stated that the influenza A vaccine “excites a strong immune reaction as it is designed to do, with spillover effects on many biological systems and functions that can be clearly demonstrated on laboratory testing.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMcGrail v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · May 3, 2021
He began by explaining how the two arms of the immune system—humeral and cellular immunity—operate during an adaptive immune response. First Kedl Rep. at 4–5. According to Dr. … Kedl concluded that: activation of adaptive immunity in less than 3 days requires the existence of immune memory, [ ] immune-mediated tissue disruption within this timeframe
Cited 0 timesPublished122 Fed. Cl. 158 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 2, 2015
The facts of this case clearly demonstrate that the court lacks jurisdiction. … li]TI: $ rf i plaintiff tulfills this require;";,, the federal govemment's sovercign immunity from,uit. cti. vit*aui"e
Cited 4 timesPublished138 F. Supp. 251 · United States Court of Claims · Jan 31, 1956
By reason of this experience he might also qualify as a rating specialist. However, the knowledge gained as a rating specialist did not of itself qualify an employee to be an assistant adjudication officer. … The record clearly shows that your previous reassignment from the position of Assistant Adjudication Officer, GS-12 (P-5), to a position of Bating Specialist, GS-12 (P-5), was a lateral reassignment in grade and salary.
Cited 7 timesPublishedHendrickson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 9, 2021
Petitioner also filed an expert report from a qualified expert addressing all three Althen prongs. Ex. 28. … Petitioner further stated that medical literature clearly indicates that certain forms of CRPS can be immune mediated. See id. VI. Discussion A.
Cited 0 timesPublished91 Fed. Cl. 560 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 2, 2010
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 , 92 S.Ct. 594 , 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), this relaxed standard does not relieve a plaintiff from establishing jurisdiction. See Bernard v. United States, 59 Fed.Cl. 497, 499 (2004). … Williams’ request and evidence, and clearly explained the Board’s findings and conclusion. Specifically, the Board examined Mr.
Cited 4 timesPublished34 Fed. Cl. 755 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 7, 1996
Plaintiff is bound by the BCNR’s determination, unless he establishes through cogent and clearly convincing evidence that the Board’s determination was arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial … The problem for plaintiff in this case was that he was one of a number of individuals eligible and qualified for promotion.
Cited 3 timesPublishedKalamazoo Contractors, Inc. v. United States
41 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,077 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 16, 1997
The burden of establishing jurisdiction is on the plaintiff. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Indiana, 298 U.S. 178, 189 , 56 S.Ct. 780, 785 , 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936); Alaska v. … The individual claimants, therefore, must look beyond the jurisdictional statute for a waiver of sovereign immunity. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. at 398 , 96 S.Ct. at 953 .
Cited 10 timesPublished3 Cl. Ct. 696 · United States Court of Claims · Oct 31, 1983
Adams, B-204522 (Mar. 23, 1982), rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the leave so forfeited qualified for restoration under 5 U.S.C. § 6304 (d) (Supp. … This statutory provision is clearly inapplicable. Section 6304(d) is quoted supra note 4.
Cited 5 timesPublished
Ask Donna