Legal Opinion
Albino v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided July 8, 2010No. 09-888 CPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO SUPPLEMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE
SWEENEY, Judge.
Before the court are Plaintiffs Motion for Supplementation of the Administrative Record (“motion to supplement”), Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (“motion to strike”), and Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order of Medical Information Included in the Administrative Record (“motion for protective order”). For the reasons explained below, plaintiffs motion to supplement is denied, defendant’s motion to strike is denied, and…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. LorionSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Axiom Resource Management, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
- Metz v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Murakami v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2000
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Miller v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
- Ross-Hime Designs, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
- Richard P. Watson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
- Albino v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- Rob W. Frey v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.