Cases

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 16-932 (Filed: 18 August 2025) *************************************** SPECTRE CORPORATION, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES,

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 16-932 (Filed: 1 May 2023) *************************************** SPECTRE CORPORATION, * * Plaintiff, * * Motion for Enlargement of Time; Pioneer; v. *

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 16-932 (Filed: 26 July 2022) *************************************** SPECTRE CORPORATION, * * Plaintiff, * * Evidence; Admissibility of Layperson v. * Testimony; Admissibility of Exper

OPINION AND ORDER SMITH, Senior Judge This case is before the Court on defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, Spectre Corporation (“Spectre”), seeks compensatory damages for alleged breaches of two contracts by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”), as well as an alleged breach of the implied covenants of good faith and fair deali

386 S.C. 357 (2010) 688 S.E.2d 844 SPECTRE, LLC, Respondent, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, League of Women Voters of Georgetown County, South Carolina Wildlife Federation, League of Women Voters of South Carolina, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, and League of Women Voters of Charleston Areas, Appellants. No. 26764. Supreme Court of

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 22-867C (Filed: May 12, 2023) ************************************* JOSHUA J. ANGEL, * * Plaintiff, * RCFC 12(b)(1); RCFC 12(b)(6); Statute of *

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 14-924L (Filed: March 10, 2023) FOR PUBLICATION *************************************** YURIY PRAKHIN, * * Plaintiff, * * v. *

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 20-456C (Filed: July 25, 2025) ************************** PLATINUM SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ************************** Anthony J. Marchese, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. Carol L. O’Riordan, of counsel. Stephanie A. Fleming, Trial Attorney, United States Depart

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 19-1246 Filed: December 7, 2020 ) FLETCHER, et al., ) Tribal Trust; Native American Trust ) Management; Tucker Act; 28 U.S.C. § Plaintiffs, ) 1491; Indian Tucker Act; 28 U.S.C. §

CLAIRE V. EAGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Now before the Court are defendant Scott Frederick Arterbury's motion to enforce prior order suppressing evidence on grounds of collateral estoppel (Dkt. # 13), and motion, in the alternative, to suppress evidence and request for an evidentiary hearing (Dkt. # 14). I. Background According to plaintiff, defendant Scott Frederick Arterbury

In the United States Court of Federal Claims SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. No. 17-cv-825 THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Filed Under Seal: February 28, 2025 1 and Publicatio

PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. This tax appeal has its origins in the United Kingdom system of corporate and shareholder taxation that was adopted in the Finance Act of 1972. The ensuing changes of tax structure in the United Kingdom resulted in renegotiation of the tax treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States, in order to obtain for United States

OPINION AND ORDER Aiken, Judge:1 Plaintiffs in this civil rights action are a group of young people between the ages of eight and nineteen (“youth plaintiffs”); Earth Guardians, an association of young environmental activists; and Dr. James Hansen, acting as guardian for future generations.2 Plaintiffs filed this action against defendants the United S

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge On March 23, 2016, defendants Mario Ramirez and Camilo Ramirez (the “Ra-mirezes”) filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence (“Motion”), ECF No. 112, joined by defendant Walid Jamil, ECF No. 120. The Government filed an Opposition. ECF No. 133. The Ramirezes filed a Reply. ECF No. 138. The Court held a hea

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 19-449 Filed: October 23, 2019 ) THE MODERN SPORTSMAN, LLC, et ) al., ) ) Fifth Amendment Takings Claim; Plaintiff, ) Informal Rulemaking; Police Power;

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 17-876C (Filed: October 22, 2018) ) PETERSON INDUSTRIAL DEPOT, ) INC., et al., ) Breach of Contract; Motion to Dismiss ) for Lack of Subject Matter Plaintiffs, ) Jurisdiction;

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON DUPONT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF FIFE DAIRY, LLC’S CLAIMS B. LYNN WINMILL, Chief Judge. INTRODUCTION The Court has before it defendant DuPont’s Fifth Set of Motions for Summary Judgment re Plaintiffs’ Fraud, Assumed Duty, and Other Claims (Dkt. 1990, 1990-17). This order focuses on DuPont’s request for summary judgment of all claims asserted by F

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 12-2548 _____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant v. HARRY KATZIN; MICHAEL KATZIN; MARK LOUIS KATZIN, SR. ______________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT

BOGGS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which McKEAGUE, J., joined. KEITH, J. (pp. 333-36), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the result. OPINION BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals, Inc., was an incredibly profitable company that served as the distributor of Enzyte, an herbal supplement purported to enhance male sexual performance. In this appeal, defe

OPINION RIDGWAY, Judge: In the 11 above-captioned actions, Plaintiff Rockwell Automation, Inc. contests the classification of “certain short-body timing relays (SBTRs) used in manufacturing applications” that Rockwell imported into the United States. Plaintiffs Consent Motion for Leave to File Out of Time and for Extension of Time to Remain on Reserve Calendar (“Pl.’s Out-of-Time Motion”) at 1; see al