Clinchfield Coal Co. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BUSH, Judge.
The court now has before it defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed January 20, 2012. In its motion, the government asserts that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by precedent binding on this court, and are barred for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed below, defendant’s motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are related companies based in Virginia, West Virginia or Kentucky that produce, sell and export coal. Compl. ¶¶ 2-3. On January 25, 2002, over ten years ago, plaintiffs filed a complaint in this court “seeking recovery of amounts paid by Plaintiffs to…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Michael Strickland v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2005
- Consolidation Coal Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Red River Coal Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012