Legal Opinion
M.A. Mortenson Company v. The United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided June 5, 1989No. 89-1107PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
ARCHER, Circuit Judge.
This appeal arises from the orders and partial judgment of the United States Claims Court, M.A. Mortenson Co. v. United States, 15 Cl.Ct. 362 (1988), awarding attorney fees as part of the sanctions against the United States (government) under Rule 37 of the Rules of the United States Claims Court (RUSCC) for its failure to comply with that court’s orders of January 25 and March 15, 1988 compelling discovery.
A. An order imposing sanctions on a party for violating an order compelling discovery is neither a final order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3) (1982) nor…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Coopers & Lybrand v. LivesaySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Seigal v. MerrickCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
- Eastern Maico Distributors, Inc. v. Maico-Fahrzeugfabrik, G.M.B.H.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1981
- Jeannette Sheet Glass Corp. v. The United States, Crystal International Corp., and Glaverbel, S.A.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Buemi v. KerckhoffSupreme Court of Missouri · 2011
- Mdk, Incorporated v. Mike's Train House, Incorporated, a Maryland Corporation, Lionel Trains, Incorporated, a Michigan CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994
- Edward L. Richardson v. Chuck Penfold and Edward DyerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990
- M.A. Mortenson Company v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Sanders Associates, Inc. And Calcomp. Inc. v. Summagraphics Corporation, and James David JacobsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.