Legal Opinion
Northrop Grumman Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided March 1, 2006No. 96-760CPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
HORN, Judge.
Plaintiff Northrop Grumman advised the court that it had filed an overhead claim at the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA Nos. 55061, 55062), which included claims concerning the Georgia Production Site (GPS) facility. The GPS facility also is the subject of count XIII of the plaintiffs second amended complaint before this court. Both parties have agreed that the costs sought before the ASBCA (costs associated with general purpose assets) are different from the costs sought before this court (costs associated with special purpose TSSAM1 assets). Therefore,…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Mother's Restaurant Incorporated v. Mama's Pizza, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
- Sandra L. PLEMING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL-RUNDLE CORPORATION, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1998
- Joseph Morton Co., Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. The United States, Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Rockwell Automation, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- BRC Lease Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
- Ch2m Hill Hanford Group, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
- Howard-Pinson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- Machulas v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.