Legal Opinion
Stockton East Water District v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided April 27, 2007No. 04-541LPublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON MOTION TO AMEND OPINION
CHRISTINE O.C. MILLER, Judge.
On February 20, 2007, an opinion issued finding and concluding that plaintiffs failed to *472prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence and entering judgment for defendant. See Stockton E. Water Dist. v. United States, 75 Fed.Cl. 321 (2007). Plaintiffs’ Motion To Amend or Modify Decision was filed on March 7, 2007 (the “Motion To Amend”). Defendant filed its opposition on March 30, 2007, and plaintiffs replied on April 6, 2007. Plaintiffs argue that the court’s opinion issued February 20, 2007, should be modified in three…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Raymond J. Van Skiver Alma L. Van Skiver v. United States of America and John DoesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
- Caldwell, Iii v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Yuba Natural Resources, Inc. v. The United States, Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- National Metal Finishing Company, Inc. v. Barclaysamerican/commercial, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
- Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Industries, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1988
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Stockton East Water District v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
- Stockton East Water District v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
- Global Computer Enterprises, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
- Strategic Housing Finance Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
- Stockton East Water District v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.