Legal Opinion
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided March 30, 2006No. 04-74CPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
HEWITT, Judge.
The court has before it Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Expert Report of Brad Cornell Related to Future Damages (Def.’s Str. Mot. or Motion to Strike), PG & E’s Opposition to Motion to Strike Cornell Expert Witness Report Related to Future Damages (Pl.’s Str. Resp.), and Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Portions of the Expert Report of Brad Cornell Related to Future Damages (Def.’s Str. Reply). Defendant moves the court to “strike those portions of the expert report of Dr. Bradford Cornell, served by plaintiff ..., that reflect PG &…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Indiana Michigan Power Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District v. The United States, Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
- Intrepid v. Mamie E. Pollock, District Director of Customs, and the United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- Crowley v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- Tennessee Valley Authority v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- Yankee Atomic Electric Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- System Fuels, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
- Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.