Legal Opinion
S.A. Healy Co. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided January 21, 1997No. 94-755CPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*205 Order
WEINSTEIN, Judge.
Plaintiff has moved the court to determine the sufficiency of defendant’s responses, mostly objections based on alleged vagueness, to a large number of plaintiffs requests for admissions under United States Court of Federal Claims Rule (RCFC) 36. The motion is granted.
Defendant objected to requests 1, 2,16, 21, 44, 46, 48, 49, and 51 on the grounds that they sought admissions to the interpretations of contract provisions, and contract interpretation is beyond the scope permitted by the rules of civil procedure because it is a pure question of law, rather than “the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- City of Rome v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Julie Holmgren v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Julie Holmgren v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Kevin F. Marchand v. Mercy Medical Center, an Idaho Corporation, and Neil K. Farris, D.O.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- City of Rome v. United StatesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1978
- Williams v. KriegerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1973
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Vons Companies, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2001
- JZ Buckingham Investments LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
- AETC II PRIVATIZED HOUSING, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2025
- G. H. Bass & Co. v. Fulton County Board of Tax AssessorsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1997
- Keating v. Nordstrom, Inc.District Court, D. Alaska · 2019
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.