USCFC General Jurisdiction-Reported

U.S. Court of Federal Claims Opinions
Updated: 13 hours 31 min ago
General Jurisdiction (Reported)
General Jurisdiction (Unreported)
Vaccine (Reported)
Vaccine (Unreported)
Keywords:
Start date:
End date:

X

There are four categories on the left side of the search bar, each with a check box. The currently visible cateogry is highlighted yellow. To search multiple categories at once, place a check mark next to each desired category. Note if none are selected, the search will default to all categories. You must select additional search parameters (keyword, judicial officer, date range) if you specify a case category.

To search for specific words, enter one or more keywords in the search term box, then click the Search button. To search for a phrase, enclose it in quotes, "like this." Keywords and search terms are not case sensitive. You do not need to use wildcards.

To search by case number, enter the case number in xx-yyy format in the keywords box. The first two digits before the dash are the year in which the case was opened. If this year is 2000 through 2009, include the leading zero for best results.

To search by judicial officer (a particular judge or special master), click the drop-down menu "(judicial officer)" then make your selection from the list. If you decide to not search for a specific judicial officer, choose "(judicial officer)" from the list.

Dates are expected to be month/day/year format, also known as mm/dd/yyyy format. If you use a dash/hyphen as the separator, the search engine will expect the date to be in yyyy-mm-dd format (in other words, the year comes first; this is the European format).

Search results will have relevant terms highlighted so you can see why a particular item appears in the results. Note: Results are limited to 500 items; if your search returns 500 items, try adjusting it to get more specific results.

To clear your search results and view posted opinions, click on one of the category labels.

To close this help text, click on the Help! button again, or click the blue X in the upper right corner of this box.

11-329C • GERALD R. WHITE V. THE UNITED STATES

Filed 12/08/2011
Tucker Act; 28 U.S.C. § 1491; 28 U.S.C. § 2501; statute of limitations; RCFC 12(b)(1); subject matter jurisdiction; pro se; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Title VII; racial discrimination; veterans benefits Signed by Judge Damich.

09-401C • ROAD AND HIGHWAY BUILDERS, LLC V. THE UNITED STATES

Filed 12/08/2011
Contracts, agreement to release IRS’s right of redemption, 26 U.S.C. § 7425(d), jurisdiction, presumption of good faith for government employees, motion in limine to exclude prior testimony Signed by Judge Margolis.

07-266C • CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, et al. V. THE UNITED STATES

Filed 12/08/2011
Motion to Continue Stay; Indefinite Stay; Interim Injunctive Relief Signed by Judge Futey.

06-914L • NORTHWESTERN BAND OF SHOSHONE V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filed 12/06/2011
Jurisdiction; 28 U.S.C. § 1500; Indian Trust; Operative facts Signed by Judge Block.

08-839C • YAKAMA NATION HOUSING AUTHORITY V. THE UNITED STATES

Filed 12/05/2011
Lummi Tribe v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 584 (2011); Anti-Deficiency Act; 28 U.S.C. § 1500; NAHASDA; Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub. L. v. * No. 110-411, 122 Stat. 4319 Trusts; Fiduciary Duties; Money-Mandating Statute Signed by Judge Smith.

10-393C • AVIATION SOFTWARE, INC., et al. V. THE UNITED STATES

Filed 12/05/2011
Copyright infringement case; Motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) – statute of limitations; Claim preclusion; Preclusion requirements satisfied; “Recently discovered” evidence did not prevent application of preclusion doctrine; Case dismissed. Signed by Judge Allegra.

03-2272T • ROBERT G. MARTIN et al. V. THE UNITED STATES

Filed 12/05/2011
AMCOR; TEFRA; Reconsideration; No Intervening Change in Controlling Legal Authority Signed by Judge Damich.

09-172L • ERNEST YBANEZ, et al. V. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filed 12/05/2011
Rails-to-Trails Act; Fifth Amendment Takings Clause; Surface Transportation Board; Application of State Property Law; RCFC 56(c) Cross-motions for Summary Judgment; National Trails System Act Amendments of 1983,16 U.S.C. § 1247(d); Texas Law; Methodology for Determining Just Compensation Signed by Judge Hodges.

05-168L • CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT V. THE UNITED STATES

Filed 12/05/2011
Fifth Amendment Taking: (1) The only compensable water right that can be obtained under California law is a right to beneficial use. (2) Defendant cannot successfully invoke the takings defense identified in Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), where defendant has failed to show that the restriction on water use imposed upon plaintiff pursuant to the Endangered Species Act duplicates the result that could have been achieved under background principles of state law. (3) Plaintiff’s takings claim will not accrue until the government’s action interferes with plaintiff’s beneficial use of water. Signed by Judge Wiese.

06-150 & 07-647C • VERIDYNE CORPORATION V. THE UNITED STATES

Filed 12/05/2011
Pleading and practice; motion in limine; testimony of lay witness on detrimental effects of fraud on Small Business Administration 8(a) program; Fed. R. Evid. 403, 701, 702. Signed by Judge Miller, C..

06-924L • ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE V. THE UNITED STATES

Filed 12/02/2011
Subject matter jurisdiction; 28 U.S.C. § 1500 (2006); Tohono O’Odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011); RCFC 12(b)(1); Indian trust claims; substantially the same operative facts. Signed by Judge Merow.

06-918L • MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION OF OKLAHOMA V. THE UNITED STATES

Filed 12/02/2011
Subject matter jurisdiction; 28 U.S.C. § 1500 (2006); Tohono O’Odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011); RCFC 12(b)(1); Indian trust claims; substantially the same operative facts. Signed by Judge Merow.

06-922L • LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filed 12/01/2011
Jurisdiction; 28 U.S.C. § 1500; Indian Trust; Operative facts Signed by Judge Block.

11-533C • IBM CORPORATION, U.S. FEDERAL V. THE UNITED STATES

Filed 12/01/2011
Post-award bid protest; agency properly evaluated strengths and weaknesses of plaintiff’s proposal; agency’s adjectival ratings of plaintiff’s proposal were proper; agency did not introduce a new factor not described in solicitation in evaluating plaintiff’s proposal for veterans involvement; agency did not engage in disparate treatment in evaluating proposals; SSA’s findings of technical superiority and technical equality were rational and adequately documented; best-value analyses were unnecessary when SSA found that lower-priced proposals were technically superior or equal to plaintiff’s proposal; SSA’s best-value tradeoff analyses were thoroughly explained, documented, and rational; FAR 15.101-1; FAR 15.308; Blue & Gold Fleet L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007), waiver of challenge to terms of solicitation; meaningful discussions; FAR 15.306. Signed by Judge Miller, G..

11-573C • ORION TECHNOLOGY, INC. V. THE UNITED STATES

Filed 12/01/2011
Motions to Supplement the Administrative Record; Legibility of Administrative Record; Proposed Substituted Documents With Differing Pagination; Expert Declaration Signed by Judge Sweeney.

04-1419T & 05-1067T • K2 TRADING VENTURES, LLC, NEW VISTA, LLC, TAX MATTERS PARTNER V. UNITED STATES

Filed 11/30/2011
Partnership Tax; Lack of Economic Substance; Outside Basis; Fictional Loss; Profit-Making Potential; Capability for Diversification; Meaningless Inclusion in a Partnership. Signed by Judge Williams.

10-48C • RICHARD CARTER AND JERRY GOODWIN, d/b/a R&J FEED V. THE UNITED STATES

Filed 11/30/2011
Contract; third-party beneficiary; Astra; mutuality; consideration Signed by Judge Bruggink.

11-712C • MED TRENDS, INC. V. THE UNITED STATES

Filed 11/30/2011
Pre-Award Bid Protest; Jurisdictional Standing; Waiver of Challenges to Patent Errors in the Solicitation; Challenges to Suspension or Debarment Signed by Judge Bush.

09-265L • MARVIN M. BRANDT, et al. V. THE UNITED STATES

Filed 11/30/2011
28 U.S.C. § 1500; United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011); Substantial Overlap in Operative Facts Signed by Judge Hewitt.

09-844C & 10-741C • SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION V. UNITED STATES

Filed 11/30/2011
Claim based upon allocation of overhead costs to government contracts; Cost Accounting Standards; scope and thrust of 48 C.F.R. § 9904.418-50; application of M. Maropakis Carpentry to affirmative defenses; criteria for proper cost- accounting allocation of indirect costs; relevance of unpublished regulatory history; service of more than 25 interrogatories to a party; RCFC 33(a)(1) Signed by Judge Lettow.

Pages