Legal Opinion

Abbey v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided October 14, 2009No. 07-272 CPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

EMILY C. HEWITT, Chief Judge.

Before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal (defendant’s Motion to Certify or Def.’s Mot. Certify). The United States (government or defendant) requests that the court amend its July 31, 2008 Opinion (Opinion) to include the express findings required by 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(2) to certify the Opinion for interlocutory appeal. Def.’s Mot. Certify 1. Plaintiffs oppose defendant’s Motion to Certify arguing that the motion is untimely and does not meet the requirements for certification. Pis.’ Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. Certify 1,2.

I. Background

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Catlin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. The United States v. Patrick J. ConnollyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1983
  3. In Re City of Memphis, West Tennessee Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Zellner Construction Company, Inc. v. City of MemphisCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002
  4. Miguel Antonio Aparicio v. Swan Lake, Her Engines, Boilers, Tackle, Etc., Third Party v. Panama Canal Company, Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1981
  5. Morton W. Weir, Judith S. Liebman, Robert M. Berdahl, and Donald L. Bitzer v. Franklin M. Propst, Respondent-PlaintiffCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Abbey v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
  2. Laturner v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
  3. United Launch Services, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API