Legal Opinion
Southern Nuclear Operating Co. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided November 1, 2007No. 98-614CPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION
MEROW, Senior Judge.
Defendant timely moved for reconsideration of discrete segments of the Opinion reported in this matter at 77 Fed.Cl. 396 (2007). Plaintiffs have filed a Response.1 After careful analysis of the parties’ submissions, for the following reasons it is concluded that defendant has not shown any viable basis for reconsideration.
*137A. Standards for reconsideration
By a timely motion, a party may request the court amend its findings and judgment. RCFC 52(b). “[Reconsideration may be granted ... for any of the reasons established by the rules…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- United States v. Winstar Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Caldwell, Iii v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Yuba Natural Resources, Inc. v. The United States, Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- Indiana Michigan Power Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- Fru-Con Construction Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1999
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Southern Nuclear Operating Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
- Yankee Atomic Power Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
- Englewood Terrace Ltd. Partnership v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
- Fillmore Equipment of Holland, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- Englewood Terrace Ltd. Partnership v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.