Legal Opinion
Curtis v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided August 6, 2004No. 03-1247CPublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
HEWITT, Judge.
The court has before it plaintiffs Motion to Reopen (plaintiffs motion or PL’s Mot.). The court treats plaintiffs Motion to Reopen as a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC or Rules).1 For the following reasons, plaintiffs motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to VACATE the judgment and REOPEN the case.
Plaintiff filed a complaint in this court on May 13, 2003. See Complaint (Compl.) (displaying a date stamp of May 13, 2003). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on September 12,…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Hughes v. RoweSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Ackermann v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Castro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- CNA Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
- Vessels v. Secretary of Department of Health & Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
- Webster v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
- Curtis v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2004
- Batish v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.