Legal Opinion
Navarro Research & Engineering, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided August 16, 2010No. 10-481PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRUGGINK, Judge.
This is a post-award bid protest. Plaintiff, a disappointed bidder, moved for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. Defendant and intervenor opposed the grant of injunctive relief, and defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). We heard oral argument on August 6, 2010. Immediately afterward, citing the reasons stated at oral argument, we denied plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief and defendant’s motion to dismiss. This opinion more fully explains our reasoning.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND1
Pl…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Mazurek v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Aaron v. Securities & Exchange CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Distributed Solutions, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- Madison Services, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
- National Air Cargo Group, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
- Plasan North America, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
- MED Trends, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.