Legal Opinion
Bull v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided October 14, 2005No. 01-56 CPublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
HEWITT, Judge.
Before the court are Defendant’s Motion to Clarify Court’s Decision (Def.’s Mot.), Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant’s Motion to Clarify Order (Pl.’s Resp.), and Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Clarification (Def.’s Reply). Defendant requests the court to clarify one aspect of its September 27, 2005 Opinion and Order (Slip Op. or Opinion), namely the amount of overtime compensation to which three representative plaintiffs, Messrs. Bailey, Kruzel, and Leuth, are entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (2000)…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Landmark Land Company, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. United States, Defendant-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Fegley v. HigginsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994
- Paulina Castillo v. Ercell GivensCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1983
- Joseph H. Holzapfel, and Others Similarly Situated v. Town of Newburgh, Ny Charles M. Kehoe, Chief of Police, Town of Newburgh Police DepartmentCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Bull v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007
- Martin v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
- Martin v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
- Whalen v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
- Shea v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2020
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.