Legal Opinion
M.A. Mortenson Co. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided September 12, 1988No. Nos. 815-86C, 178-87CPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
BRUGGINK, Judge.
On January 25, 1988, after a hearing on plaintiff’s motion of December 10, 1987 to compel certain discovery, the court granted the motion and directed production of certain documents and additional responses to interrogatories and created a new discovery schedule. After reviewing status reports on compliance, and after a telephonic conference, the court entered an order on March 15, 1988 directing full compliance with the ordered discovery by April 6, 1988. Defendant was notified that, “[s]hould the court determine that defendant has, without adequate reason, failed to…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Roadway Express, Inc. v. PiperSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Weil v. NearySupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Hewitt v. City of StantonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Rio Grande Irrigation & Colonization Co. v. GildersleeveSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Barbara BRAXTON, Appellant, v. BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY and Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 788, AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1984
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- M.A. Mortenson Company v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Matthews v. Secretary of the Dept. of Health & Human ServicesUnited States Court of Claims · 1989
- M.A. Mortenson Company v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1989
- Applegate v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1996
- Yancheng Baolong Biochemical Products Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2004
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.