Legal Opinion
Diebold v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided October 15, 1991No. 90-5373PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MERRITT, Chief Judge.
This case presents the jurisdictional question whether, under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2),1 a decision by the army to “privatize” or to “contract-out” the operations of its dining halls at Fort Knox is a decision “committed to agency discretion by law.” The complaint in this “wrongful privatization” case alleges that the Army miscalculated the comparative costs of in-house versus outside operation of its dining halls and therefore violated statutes and regulations governing the agency’s decision to contract with a private company.
The…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. CampSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Heckler v. ChaneySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Clarke v. Securities Industry Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family PhysiciansSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Madison-Hughes v. ShalalaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
- Madison-Hughes v. ShalalaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
- Oscar Socop-Gonzalez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, OpinionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Labat-Anderson, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.