Legal Opinion

Dubinsky v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided August 3, 1999No. 99-191CPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*510ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION

BRUGGINK, Judge.

Pending in.this post-award1 bid protest are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The protest challenges a procurement conducted by the United States Air Force Academy (“Academy”) in Colorado. The subject matter of the procurement is an electronic scoreboard to replace the existing scoreboard at Falcon Stadium, the Academy’s football stadium. Plaintiff, who appears pro se, is the sole proprietor of Nu-Way Signs Company (“Nu-Way”), one of the companies that submitted quotations relating to this procurement.

The court recently…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, and Westfalia Separators, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
  3. Dubinsky v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1999
  4. Beta Analytics International, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1999
  5. Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1998

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Afghan American Army Services Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
  2. Mangi Environmental Group, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2000
  3. EMTA Insaat, A.S. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
  4. Group Seven Associates, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
  5. Uusi, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API