Legal Opinion
Tesoro Hawaii Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided September 15, 2003No. 02-704CPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRUGGINK, Judge.
This is an action arising out of the use of an economic price adjustment clause in a series of competitively-awarded fuel supply *67contracts. Defendant’s October 15, 2002 motion for partial summary judgment and plaintiffs’ December 12, 2002 cross-motion are now pending. The parties were allowed to file supplemental briefing. For the reasons set out below, plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part, and denied in part. Defendant’s motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs, Tesoro Hawaii and Tesoro Alaska, are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Tesoro Petroleum Corporation,1 which…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. SchorSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Kaiser Steel Corp. v. MullinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Beta Systems, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- John Reiner & Company, Individually and to the Use of Kurz & Root Company (Incorporated) v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1963
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Tesoro Hawaii Corporation, Tesoro Alaska Company and Hermes Consolidated, Inc., D/B/A Wyoming Refining Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- Hermes Consolidated, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2003
- La Gloria Oil & Gas Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- ConocoPhillips v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- Tesoro Hawaii Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005