Legal Opinion
Carter v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided April 29, 2011No. 10-48CPublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*633ORDER
ERIC G. BRUGGINK, Judge.
In its complaint, plaintiff1 alleges that the United States breached a contractual duty to provide plaintiff with dry milk for use as agricultural feed. Pending is defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”).2 The motion has been fully briefed and we believe oral argument to be unnecessary. For the reasons explained below, we grant in part defendant’s motion to dismiss as to four of the five counts in plaintiffs complaint.
BACKGROUND3
A severe and lengthy drought in 2002-04 caused a…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Karen S. Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exchange ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Township of Saddle Brook v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- Xp Vehicles, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
- Ascom Hasler Mailing Systems, Inc. v. United States Postal ServiceDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Elmendorf Support Services Joint Venture v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- Threshold Technologies, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.