Case law

Corrigan v. United States

82 Fed. Cl. 301 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 18, 2008

To qualify, the defense “has to be clearly indicated and must appear on the face of the pleading to be used as the basis for the motion.” Id.; see also Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v. … By affording a claimant only one opportunity to obtain redress, the doctrine conserves judicial resources, fosters reliance upon judicial decisions, immunizes against the possibility of inconsistent decisions, and protects

Demko v. United States

44 Fed. Cl. 83 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 18, 1999

974 (Fed.Cir.1997) (“[W]here Congress uses terms that have accumulated settled meaning under either equity or common law, a court must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established … United States, 179 Ct.Cl. 466, 470-71 , 373 F.2d 920, 922 (1967) (finding liberal delegation constitutional because “policy of the statutory provision is clearly apparent, the Con *94 gress has delineated the public agency

Hassay v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 27, 2025

The Board concluded, however, that “the objective contemporary evidence overwhelmingly established that [Mr. … Cir. 1988) (observing that the six-year limitations period “is a jurisdictional requirement attached by Congress as a condition of the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity and, as such, must be strictly construed”).

S. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 9, 2026

dysregulation of the immune response to continue or expand. … In attempting to establish entitlement to a Vaccine Program award of compensation for a Non-Table claim, a petitioner must satisfy all three of the elements established by the Federal Circuit in Althen v.

Corus Staal BV v. United States Department of Commerce

259 F. Supp. 2d 1253 · United States Court of International Trade · Mar 7, 2003

Commerce clearly stumbled upon something that caused it to reconsider and reverse its position. … Having found that the statute does not clearly require zeroing, the court now turns to whether the WTO Antidumping Agreement clearly prohibits zeroing.

Waterman v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 22, 2015

Waterman would later report to the police that, prior to immunization, “he had been very healthy with the exception of some previous slight jaundice.” Pet. Ex. 13 at 2. … To establish entitlement to compensation under the Program, Petitioners are required to establish each of the three prongs of Althen by a preponderance of the evidence. See id.

Earl C. Gibbs, Inc. v. Defense Supplies Corporation

155 F.2d 525 · Emergency Court of Appeals · May 8, 1946

Defense Supplies Corporation *526 ruled that complainant, which in other respects qualified for the special subsidy to non-processing slaughterers, was not eligible to receive such subsidy from November 1, 1943, to November … the same amount of live weight of cattle slaughtered on and after November 1, 1943, on which payments are made to the applicant under §§ 7003.1 through 7003.5 of this regulation. * * *" [2] The language of Amendment No. 2 clearly

Senior Inv. Corp. v. Commissioner

2 T.C. 124 · United States Tax Court · Jun 15, 1943

The rule established by the above cited cases is applicable here notwithstanding the provisions of section 501 (a) of the Second Revenue Act of 1940. … The petitioner therefore qualifies as a deficit corporation under section 26 (c) (3), supra.

Application of Russell B. Newton

414 F.2d 1400 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 18, 1969

Apart from “double patenting,” it is contended, the examiner’s rejection can be considered under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (g), such as to be immune from any avoidance by terminal disclaimer. … Having established that the claims do in fact define different inventions, it is clear that the terminal disclaimer by the common assignee overcomes the double patenting rejection.

Aerodex, Inc. v. The United States

417 F.2d 1361 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 14, 1969

After some further delay not clearly the fault of either party, on June 17, 1959, the Government authorized the “substitution” of the U.S. … In the absence of any qualifying statements, it will be understood that the bidder is offering a product equal to the brand name and number specified.

Moreno v. United States

82 Fed. Cl. 387 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 3, 2008

In addition, 5 C.F.R. § 610.111 (a)(2) (2000) requires that “[t]he head of each agency ... shall establish ... … Here, by contrast, the plaintiffs clearly could have sued any time after the pay periods during which they worked a sixth day per week at FLETC but did not receive overtime for it.

Roth v. United States

56 Fed. Cl. 239 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 15, 2003

But clearly, pursuant to note 7, the AFBCMR has discretion respecting the language that may be used. … Clearly plaintiff’s words were indicative of righteous indignation.

Donald Mathews v. Robert A. McDonald

28 Vet. App. 309 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 14, 2016

Michael Shelton, submitted a letter indicating that pathology reports for the left neck tumor had "not established a definitive diagnosis." R. at 727. Mr. … Mathews also argues that the Board clearly erred in finding that Dr. Lin's January 2014 opinion and October 2014 addendum were adequate for adjudication purposes because the pilot study that Dr.

Old Stone Corp. v. United States

63 Fed. Cl. 65 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 18, 2004

Yet, “ ‘[i]f a reasonable probability of damage can be clearly established, uncertainty as to the amount will not preclude recovery,’ and the court’s duty is to ‘make a fair and x-easonable approximation of damages.’ ” Bluebonnet … Some damages are too attenuated or too speculative to qualify for award, however. The non-breaching party is entitled only to damages that are foreseeable. Hadley v.

Industrial Tectonics Bearings Corp. v. United States

44 Fed. Cl. 115 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 30, 1999

Plaintiff disputes the government’s characterization of Modification P00005 (Pl.’s Issues No. 3), particularly that the Modification “clearly delineated] ITB’s responsibilities for its inventory.” Def.’s Facts No. 3. … The DCAA qualified ITB’s entire report “because all the physical inventory items are missing.” Id.

Walker v. Commissioner

37 T.C. 962 · United States Tax Court · Feb 21, 1962

that general Acts of Congress do not apply to Indians unless so worded as clearly to manifest an intention to include Indians in their operation. … not apply to Indians unless so worded as to clearly manifest an intention to include Indians in their operation— we regard the statement of the Supreme Court in Squire v.

Facility Healthcare Services, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 10, 2022

Clearly, Plaintiff is an actual bidder for this contract. Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352, 1359 (Fed. … Cl. at 439 (determining that advisement that an offeror’s prices were “way too high” was sufficient to qualify as meaningful and fair discussions).

Harris v. Comm'r

107 T.C.M. 1363 · United States Tax Court · Apr 16, 2014

Achieving such success clearly required a high level of investment from both K.H. and his family. … Although section 7491 may shift the burden of proof in specified circumstances, petitioner has not established that he meets the prerequisites under section 7491(a)(1) and (2) for such a shift.

Mexican Intermodal Equipment S.A. de C.V. v. United States

61 Fed. Cl. 55 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 10, 2004

Once jurisdiction is challenged by the court or the opposing party, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. See McNutt v. Gen. … Individual claimants, therefore, must look beyond the jurisdictional statute for a waiver of sovereign immunity. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. at 538 , 100 S.Ct. 1349 .

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States

31 Cont. Cas. Fed. 71,411 · United States Court of Claims · Aug 30, 1983

not meet the standards for an implied-in-fact contract, and none was established. … Clearly, no implied-in-fact contract for a cost share agreement existed on March 25, 1975 — none of the elements essential for an implied-in-fact contract existed.