Legal Opinion
Miller-Holzwarth, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided May 7, 1999No. 98-576CPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MILLER, Judge.
This matter is before the court incident to a post-award bid protest initiated by Miller-Holzwarth, Incorporated (“plaintiff’). The court’s opinion, issued under seal on December 18, 1998, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant and Optex Systems, Inc. (“intervenor”). See Miller-Holzwarth, Inc. v. United States & Optex Systems, Inc., 42 Fed.Cl. 643 (1999) [issued for publication], appeal docketed, No. 99-5045 (Fed.Cir. Jan. 29, 1999). Intervenor’s motion for sanctions seeks its reasonable expenses, including…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Board of Comm'rs, Wabaunsee Cty. v. UmbehrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Richard L. Zaldivar v. City of Los Angeles, and Margaret Salazar, Intervenors-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Orion International Technologies v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2004
- Filtration Development Co., LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2004
- Dolphin Park Tt, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2022