Legal Opinion

Bevevino v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided June 9, 2011No. 08-677 CPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BUSH, Judge.

Before the court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, filed pursu*463ant to Rule 56 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). The motions have been fully briefed, and oral argument was neither requested by the parties nor deemed necessary by the court. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs’ motion is denied and defendant’s cross-motion is granted.

BACKGROUND1

Plaintiffs in this action “are former and current employees of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Institution [ (FCI) ] at McKean, Pennsylvania.” Compl. ¶ 1.…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. American Auto Logistics, Lp v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
  2. Miglionico v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012

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

Powered by the Exa API