Legal Opinion
Reitz v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided February 12, 1997No. 90-1344VPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
MILLER, Judge.
This matter comes before the court on petitioners’ Motion for Review and Alternative Motion for Relief Under Rule 60. The issue is whether petitioners are entitled to relief from a judgment that they claim was entered erroneously. Argument is deemed unnecessary.
FACTS
On September 25, 1990, petitioners filed a petition under the Vaccine Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-l — 300aa-34 (1994), alleging that their son’s DPT vaccination resulted in encephalopathy and seizures. The special master required petitioners to file by April 19, 1993, the documents called for by 42 U.S.C. §…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Ackermann v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Robert James Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 27Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1972
- In the Matter of Emergency Beacon Corporation, Debtor. Montco, Inc. v. Harvey S. BarrCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1981
- Burton v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Infiniti Information Solutions, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
- Cyios Corporation v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
- Progressive Industries, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017