Whorton v. United States
United States Court of Claims
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
KOZINSKI, Chief Judge.
In a terse motion dated October 29, 1982, defendant requested a 30-day enlargement to file its answer, representing as follows:
The reasons upon which this motion for enlargement are [sic] based are that the files necessary to prepare an answer to the petition are located in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Norfolk and it and the Customs Service need the additional time to prepare their respective files for the use of the Department in the drafting [typing garbled].1
The clerk granted the motion pursuant to RUSCC 77.2, enlarging the time to file an answer to December 1,…
2Cited by8 opinions
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1984
- White Mountain Apache Tribe v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1984
- Degenaars Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1983
- Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1983
- Sterling-Kates Properties Joint Venture v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1983
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.