Legal Opinion

Coflexip & Services, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided May 22, 1990No. 33-88CPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

MOODY R. TIDWELL, III, Judge:

This matter is before the court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judg*413ment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Rules of the United States Claims Court (RUSCC). The court shall grant a party’s motion for summary judgment under RUSCC 56 when their are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A fact is material if, according to the applicable substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. United States v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. MerrillSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  5. The United States v. Patrick J. ConnollyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Finley v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1994
  2. Coflexip & Services, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
  3. Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
  4. Grumman Data Systems Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1993
  5. Coflexip & Services, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1991

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API