Legal Opinion
Strong v. Glickman
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided January 15, 1999No. Civ.A. 95-1624 SSHPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
STANLEY S. HARRIS, District Judge.
Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, filed in both this Court and the Court of Federal Claims. 1 Upon careful consideration of the parties’ motions, the oppositions and replies thereto, and the entire record, the Court denies plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment. “Findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions under Rule 12 or 56....” Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Summers v. Department of Justice, 140 F.3d 1077, 1079-80 (D.C.Cir.1998).…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Patrick Esch v. Clayton K. Yeutter, Secretary, U.S. Department of AgricultureCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1989
- Summers v. Department of JusticeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1998
- American Hospital Association v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary, H.H.S.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1987
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Beard v. GlickmanDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2001
- Gilbert v. Atlantic TrustDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 2006
- SEC v. Patel, et al.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 2008