Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Barrett Refining Corp. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided October 29, 1999No. Nos. 96-15C, 96-724C, 96-725C, 96-726C, 97-321CPublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BRUGGINK, Judge.

Pending are cross-motions in which the plaintiff moves to dismiss each of the defendant’s amended counterclaims, and the defendant seeks summary judgment on its amended counterclaims. Based on its initial complaint and this court’s decision in Barrett Refining Corp. v. United States1, 42 Fed.Cl. 128 (1998), plaintiff Barrett Refining Corporation (“Barrett”) seeks $1,546,429 in damages alleged to have resulted from the government’s use of an unauthorized Economic Price Adjustment (“EPA”) Clause in contract DLA600-91-D-0512. The government counterclaims, seeking recovery…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. United States v. WurtsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Wisconsin Central Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
  3. Beta Systems, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
  4. The United States v. Amdahl CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
  5. Urban Data Systems, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Barrett Refining Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
  2. Hermes Consolidated, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2003
  3. Hermes Consolidated, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2003
  4. La Gloria Oil & Gas Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2003
  5. La Gloria Oil & Gas Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API