Legal Opinion
Cencast Services, L.P. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided February 2, 2010No. Nos. 02-1916T, 02-1917T, 02-1918T, 02-1919T, 02-1920T, 02-1921T, 02-1922T, 02-1923T, 02-1924T, 02-1925TPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
GEORGE W. MILLER, Judge.
These consolidated tax refund eases are before the Court on plaintiffs’ Motion for Determination of Privilege Claim Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(5)(B) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) (docket entry 199, Sept. 22, 2009) (“Pis.’ Mot.”). The Court ruled orally on January 28, 2010; this Opinion and Order explains more fully the rationale for the Court’s ruling.
I. Background
This ease has a long and complicated history, which is largely unnecessary to recount here. See Cencast Sens., L.P. v. United States, Nos. 02-1916 et al., 2009 WL 3650921…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Coastal States Gas Corporation v. Department of EnergyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
- Tax Analysts v. Internal Revenue ServiceCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1997
- Hearn v. RhayDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 1975
- Church of Scientology v. Internal Revenue ServiceSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Mezu v. Morgan State UniversityDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2010
- Oasis International Waters, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
- Cencast Services, L.P. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
- Estes v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
- Weston/Bean Joint Venture v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.