Legal Opinion
Armour of America v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided March 17, 2006No. 04-1731 CPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION and ORDER
DAMICH, Chief Judge.
This case is before the Court on the Motion to Intervene by ArmorWorks, LLC (“ArmorWorks”) in order to protect its proprietary information during discovery. Ar-morWorks replaced Armour of America (“AOA”) as the contractor with the government after AOA was default terminated. That default termination is the subject of this action. Defendant notified ArmorWorks that it had inadvertently disclosed proprietary information to AOA during discovery. As a consequence, ArmorWorks seeks to intervene to ensure adequate protection of its proprietary information during…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Trbovich v. United Mine WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
- William E. Nuesse, Commissioner of Banks, State of Wisconsin v. William Camp, Comptroller of the CurrencyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1967
- Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1988
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Honeywell International Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- Emerald Coast Finest Produce Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- Exocel Bio, Inc. v. Patrick Retif and Jillian VogelDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2026