Legal Opinion

Centex Corp. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided May 24, 2006No. 96-494CPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BRUGGINK, Judge.

Pending in this Winstar1 related contract action are plaintiffs’ motions for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses under Rule 54(d)(2) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC” or “Rule”), their motion for monetary sanctions under RCFC 37(e), and defendant’s motion to strike portions of plaintiffs’ reply memorandum in support of their RCFC 54(d)(2) motion for fees. The matter has been fully briefed and orally argued. For the reasons set out below, we deny plaintiffs’ Rule 54 motion and defendant’s motion to strike. We grant in part plaintiffs’ Rule 37 motion.

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  3. F. D. Rich Co. v. United States Ex Rel. Industrial Lumber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. United States v. Winstar Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
  5. Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. American Federal Bank, FSB v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
  2. Securiforce International America, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
  3. Deseret Management Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API