Legal Opinion

Arrañaga v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided March 1, 2012No. 11-166 CPublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION and ORDER

BLOCK, Judge.

This is a suit for breach of an employment contract under which plaintiff was employed as a Diplomatic Courier Liaison at the Unit*466ed State Embassy in Mexico.1 Nevertheless, the casus belli of the alleged breach does not rise to the level of a dispute in diplomacy. Indeed, its resolution turns on something more mundane — the failure to heed the operation of well-worn judicial procedures. Such failure dooms plaintiffs case.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, made pursuant to Rule 56 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”),2 presents…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  4. Lochner v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  5. Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Seven Resorts, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
  2. James v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
  3. Stathis v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
  4. Allen v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
  5. Baley v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API