Source: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/aggregator/sources/8?page=92
Timestamp: 2018-03-22 00:30:34
Document Index: 164651897

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2304', '§ 702', '§ 7101', '§ 53', '§ 1500', '§ 1491', '§ 1552', '§ 1491', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 634', '§ 1401', '§ 1556', '§ 5404', '§ 5578', '§ 6376', '§ 6382', '§ 6388', '§ 6388', '§ 6388', '§ 7422', '§ 165', '§ 4106', 'art 13']

12-148C • CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES RESOURCES, INC. V. THE UNITED STATES
Delivery Order Protest, 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e); Cross-Motions for Judgment on the Administrative Record; Scope of the Underlying Contracts; Language in Contracts Is Unambiguous; Resort to Extrinsic Evidence Is Unnecessary Signed by Judge Sweeney.
11-701C • TEREX CORPORATION V. THE UNITED STATES
In reviewing whether an agency’s award decision is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, the court is charged with ensuring that the challenged decision is based on a reasoned evaluation of the relevant factors and not with replacing the agency’s technical judgment with its own. Signed by Judge Wiese.
09-814C • PEW FOREST PRODUCTS V. THE UNITED STATES
Timber contract case; Cross-motion for summary judgment; Existence of contracts – offer and acceptance; Implied-in-fact contracts; Covenant of good faith and fair dealing; No breach; Defendant’s motion for summary judgment granted. Signed by Judge Allegra.
11-275L • BIG OAK FARMS, INC., et al. V. THE UNITED STATES
Fifth Amendment Taking; Failure to State a Claim Under RCFC 12(b)(6); Flood Control Act of 1928, 33 U.S.C. §§ 702 et seq.; Distinction between Taking and Tort under Ridge Line v. United States, 346 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Signed by Judge Firestone.
07-184C • THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA EX REL. EDMUND G. BROWN JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. V. THE UNITED STATES
Trial, Breach of Contract, California Power Crisis Signed by Judge Smith.
07-157C & 07-167C • PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. V. THE UNITED STATES
09-351C • KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC. V. THE UNITED STATES
Contracts; Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C.A. §§ 7101-09 (2006); equitable adjustment; cost-reasonableness determination; trial; provision of DFAC (dining facility) services to troops in Iraq; cost-plus award-fee for government contract; fixed-price contract for subcontractor-provider; counterclaim under the Anti-Kickback Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 53, 55 (2006); counterclaim for common law fraud (recission and disgorgement). Signed by Judge Miller, C..
04-106C • DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE V. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Spent Nuclear Fuel; Mitigation Damages; Private Fuel Storage; Causation; Reasonableness of Mitigation Signed by Judge Damich.
06-466C • DISTRIBUTED SOLUTIONS, INC., et al. V. THE UNITED STATES
Protest of pre-procurement decisions made in connection with determining a need for property or services. Signed by Judge Merow.
00-512L • PETRO-HUNT, L.L.C. V. THE UNITED STATES
Takings action; Motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1500; Judicial takings; Supplemental pleading under RCFC 15(d); Portions of complaint dismissed. Signed by Judge Allegra.
07-341T • FILLMORE EQUIPMENT OF HOLLAND, INC., et al. V. UNITED STATES
RCFC 54(b) Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties; RCFC 59(a) Reconsideration; RCFC 60(b)(6) Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding; Res Judicata; Law of the Case. Signed by Judge Horn.
09-173L • LONGNECKER PROPERTY, et al. V. UNITED STATES
Fifth Amendment Taking; Rails to Trails; Scope of the Easements; Railbanking. Signed by Judge Horn.
06-827C • PROCHAZKA V. THE UNITED STATES
Correction of Military Records, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2) (2006); Defense Officer Personnel Management Act, Pub. L. No. 96-513, 94 Stat. 2835 (1980); Manual of Navy Officers Manpower and Personnel Classifications (“NAVPERSCOM”) 158391, Vol. I (Sept. 25, 2009); Military Pay Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1552 (2006); NAVMILPERSCOM Notice 1821; SECNAVINST 1821.1; Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (2006); 10 U.S.C. § 101(b)(10) (2006) (defining “original appointment” in the same manner as 10 U.S.C. § 101(35) (1964)); 10 U.S.C. § 634(a) (2006) (Navy retirement required after “30 years of active commissioned service”); 10 U.S.C. §§ 1401-09 (2006) (method of computing “monthly military retirement pay”); 10 U.S.C. § 1556 (2006) (requiring notice of communications between the BCNR and the Navy); 10 U.S.C. § 5404 (1964) (listing “staff corps”); 10 U.S.C. § 5578(a) (1970) (repealed 1981) (three year minimum service credit for a JAGC officer); 10 U.S.C. §§ 6376-81 (1964) (repealed 1981); 10 U.S.C. § 6382(b) (1964) (repealed 1981) (discharge for failure to obtain promotion); 10 U.S.C. § 6388 (1964) (amended 1968) (prior Navy definition of “total commissioned service”); 10 U.S.C. § 6388(a) (1976) (repealed 1981) (amended Navy definition of “total commissioned service” in the Supply and Engineers staff corps); 10 U.S.C. § 6388(b) (1976) (repealed 1981) (amended Navy definition of “total commissioned service” in most staff corps). Signed by Judge Braden.
06-827C • FRANK J. PROCHAZKA V. THE UNITED STATES
Motion to Strike Exhibit Attached to Complaint That Was Not Subsequently Included in the Administrative Record Signed by Judge Sweeney.
09-742T • JOHN R. GORSKI and JEAN A. GORSKI V. THE UNITED STATES
Tax Refund Claim, 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a); Casualty Loss, 26 U.S.C. § 165(c); Issue Preclusion. Signed by Judge Braden.
12-131C • BAYFIRST SOLUTIONS, LLC, V. THE UNITED STATES
Pre-Award Bid Protest; 41 U.S.C.A. § 4106(f) (West, Westlaw through P.L. 112-81); Standing; Lack of Jurisdiction over Challenge to Proposed Issuance of a Task Order, Except for Challenge to Scope of Proposed Task Order; Agency Cancellation of Solicitation Not Arbitrary. Signed by Judge Bush.
10-583C • THREE S CONSULTING V. THE UNITED STATES
Post-Award Bid Protest; Standing to Challenge Award; Interested Party; Definition of Federal Procurement; Government Official’s Authority to Bind the Government Signed by Judge Firestone.
07-680C and 09-576C • 5860 CHICAGO RIDGE, LLC, V. THE UNITED STATES
Government contracts; Trial; Lease of office building; Termination for default; Nature of government’s burden of proof in termination for default; Must defendant prove material breach?; Repeated leaks at building impacted defendant’s ability to enjoy and use building, warranting default; Problems with heating and air conditioning inadequately documented; Reprocurement costs disallowed; Property tax adjustment clause; Rent reductions overstated. Signed by Judge Allegra.
11-773C • MIDWEST TUBE FABRICATORS, INC. V. UNITED STATES
Supplementation of the administrative record in a post-award bid protest; gap in the administrative record attributable in substantial part to the Marine Corps’ use of truncated procurement procedures available under FAR Part 13 Signed by Judge Lettow.