Legal Opinion
Cane Tennessee, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided October 3, 2003No. 96-237 LPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
HEWITT, Judge.
Before the court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Pis.’ Mot. or Motion), Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Def.’s Resp.), and Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Their Motion for Reconsideration (Pis.’ Reply). For the following reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
In their Motion, plaintiffs allege that certain factual and legal mistakes were made in the court’s opinion filed on June 27, 2003, Cane Tennessee, Inc. v. United States, 57 Fed.Cl. 115 (2003) (Cane). Pls.’ Mot. at…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictisSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Palazzolo v. Rhode IslandSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Yuba Natural Resources, Inc. v. The United States, Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- Fru-Con Construction Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1999
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cane Tennessee, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
- Cane Tennessee, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005