Case law

Riley v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 6, 2021

Byers maintained “undoubtedly primed her defective immune system before the vaccinations that caused the clinical presentation of her immune deficiency disorder.” Id. … Petitioners Have Not Established that E.R.

Driscoll v. United States

67 Fed. Cl. 22 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jul 22, 2005

As Fisher states, “The Tucker Act itself does not create a substantive cause of action; in order to come within the jurisdictional reach and the waiver [of sovereign immunity] of the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify … As a result, the Federal Circuit has stated, “It is well established that the Military Pay Act is a money-mandating statute.” Smith v. Secretary of the Army, 384 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed.Cir.2004) (citing Dysart v.

Butler Bros. v. United States

6 Cust. Ct. 444 · United States Customs Court · Jun 6, 1941

The sole question presented to the court was whether or not the merchandise in question was tableware or kitchenware and the preponderance of evidence adduced clearly establishes that the merchandise is not within the common … Therefore the collector’s classification of the articles as “tableware” resulting in an additional duty of 10 cents per dozen separate pieces is clearly erroneous.

Lyons v. United States

99 Fed. Cl. 552 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 3, 2011

, 1151 (9th Cir.1991) (“It is well established that when the federal government waives its immunity, the scope of the waiver is construed to achieve its remedial purpose.”). … On the other hand, as it does not merely "clarify or explain existing law or regulation,” the Act is clearly not just an interpretive rale. *559 Cf.

Asia Commerce Network

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals · May 16, 2019

DISCUSSION As a partial waiver of sovereign immunity, the EAJA is to be strictly construed in favor of the United States. Ardestani v. I.N.S., 502 U.S. 129, 137 (1991). … However, the record in this appeal clearly established that the government had waived the original delivery date and failed to establish a new one.

RAMOS

23 I. & N. Dec. 843 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 1, 2005

Clearly, therefore, the respondent is subject to expulsion as a disbarred attorney. … Given this, the respondent clearly “practiced” before the DHS.

Jordan M. Meschkow v. United States

109 Fed. Cl. 637 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 14, 2013

Defendant reasons that because the United States is immune from suit except to the extent that it has waived its sovereign immunity, United States v. … Because Plaintiff clearly avers that the actions of the United States Trustee were improper, unauthorized, and in violation of the Stipulation and the bankruptcy court‟s order authority, see, e.g., Am.

Calhoun v. United States

32 Fed. Cl. 400 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 13, 1994

Moreover, it also is well established that “[t]he United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued, and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court’s jurisdiction to entertain … Plaintiff Calhoun has the burden of proof to establish that this court has jurisdiction to entertain his claims.

Griffin v. United States

85 Fed. Cl. 179 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 23, 2008

Thus, as a counterbalance to the notion that waivers of sovereign immunity should be narrowly construed, it is well-established that courts are “vested with a ‘virtually unflagging obligation’ to exercise the jurisdiction … This construction of section 1500 thus can — and, indeed, often does — lead to the dismissal of claims over which this court, but for section 1500, clearly has jurisdiction.

Alejandro v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 29, 2022

Thus, standing alone, invocation of the Tucker Act is insufficient; a plaintiff must also identify a qualifying money mandating source such as a contract, statute, or regulation. Livingston v. … The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed.

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States

49 Fed. Cl. 241 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 30, 2001

Producing many of the components clearly required technologically-challenging research and design efforts. … Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment Plaintiff must establish not only “use[ ] in the conduct of qualified research,” as discussed above, but also that no expenses claimed as Supply QRE were spent on non-qualified

Berry Trust v. Commissioner

26 T.C. 344 · United States Tax Court · May 25, 1956

The record clearly demonstrates that in the ordinary course of its business activities the corporation would have either collected or charged off as worthless all but 1.336 per cent of the accounts sold on February 1, 1942 … we think he has regulated beyond that intention of Congress; and we are of the opinion that the portion of the regulations, Regulations 112, section 35.736 (a)-l (5) (3), here in issue bears no reasonable relation to the clearly

McClellan v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 29, 2019

On examination, she was found to demonstrate a two- to three-month delay in motor development, and qualified for early intervention services. Id. At Dr. … Given the short time period between vaccination and L.M.’s decline, any immune event would necessarily involve the innate immune system, not the adaptive immune system. Id. at 3; Romberg First Rep. at 3.

Meyer v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 7, 2026

Meyer medically qualified and returned him to duty with an indefinite assignment limitation code (“ALC”) C1 restriction. AR at 97. Lt. Col. … While the Tucker Act “constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity” of the United States for money damages, United States v.

Bohn v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 21, 2021

McCusker explains that the immune response to infection is not comparable to the immune response to vaccination. … McCusker is better qualified than either Dr. Waters or Dr. Miller to speak both to the immunology underlying cytokine storms and SCLS as well as the immune response to vaccination.

Gordon v. Commissioner

5 B.T.A. 1047 · United States Board of Tax Appeals · Jan 10, 1927

It is not contended that the petitioner was an officer of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and clearly he was not. … Those cases held that the officers and employees of a State or the Federal Government who administer its laws and carry on essential governmental functions are immune from taxation by the other government.

Frazier v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 14, 2021

“The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). The waiver of immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” … Frazier was not acting on behalf of the federal or a state government in filing his “Notice of Constitutional 2 Rule 5.1(c) most clearly relates to Mr. Frazier’s claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2403.

Baca v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 4, 2020

The court did not address the identity of plaintiffs in Trusted Integration, because Trusted Integration, Inc. was clearly the named plaintiff in both cases at issue. See id. at 1162. … Waiver of Sovereign Immunity Before analyzing the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ allegations, the court must address defendant’s contention that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Meyer

546 F.2d 431 · United States Court of Claims · Nov 12, 1976

Again plaintiff’s application was denied due to insufficient evidence to establish a showing of probable error or injustice. … The vague and ambiguous con-clusory statements offered by plaintiff do not qualify as such evidence.

Norby Lumber Co. v. United States

46 Fed. Cl. 47 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 4, 2000

On August 1, 1996, the contracting officer informed plaintiff that the contract was eligible for a one-year term extension offered by *49 .the Forest Service to qualifying purchasers. … The Forest Service established this figure by subtracting plaintiffs down payment on the sale, $191,400.00, from the total contract price, $404,593.83.