Legal Opinion
Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided March 7, 2014No. 1:12-cv-00780PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Bush, Senior Judge.
Before the court is defendant’s fully briefed motion to dismiss, based on Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). Oral argument was held on August 20, 2013; thereafter, supplemental briefing was permitted. For the reasons set forth herein, defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted. 1
BACKGROUND 2
I. The Contract
The parties refer to the contract at issue in this ease, Contract No. DACA63-03-D-0005, as the Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO) contract. Compl. ¶ 3; Def.’s Mot. at 1; Pl.’s Resp. at 2. According to plaintiff, the RIO contract…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Karen S. Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exchange ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- John G. Rocovich, Jr. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Canpro Investments, Ltd v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
- Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
- Parker v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
- Securiforce International America, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
- Systems Application & Tech v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2022
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.