Legal Opinion
SGS-92-X003 v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided January 27, 2009No. 97-579CPublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAMS, Judge.
This breach-of-contract action comes before the Court after a trial on liability. Plaintiff claims that she had an implied-in-fact contract with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to work as an undercover informant and alleges that DEA breached its contract with her in two respects. First, Plaintiff — who is also known as the Princess — claims she was promised but not paid a commission of 25 percent of all property or funds that were seized as a result of her efforts. Second, the Princess claims that DEA failed to protect her while she was working undercover…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. MerrillSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- United States v. Winstar Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Hercules, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Trauma Service Group v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Jumah v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
- Aboo v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
- Phang v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
- Marchena v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
- LCM Energy Solutions v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.