Legal Opinion

Raytheon Co. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided April 29, 2010No. 05-448CPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FIRESTONE, Judge.

Pending before the court are the parties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). At issue is whether Raytheon’s post-retirement benefit (“PRB”)1 costs are “pension costs” within the meaning of Cost Accounting Standard (“CAS”) 412.40(a), 48 C.F.R. § 9904.412-40(a) (2010).2 Raytheon argues that if PRB costs are pension costs, they must be included in three segment closing adjustments required under CAS 413, CAS 413.50(c)(12), 48 C.F.R. § 9904.413-50(c)(12) (1995) (“CAS 413”).3 For the…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  5. United States v. Mead Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Raytheon Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
  2. General Electric Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
  3. Arter v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2025
  4. United States Enrichment Corporation 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