BMY-Combat Systems Division of Harsco Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
1Opinion of the Court
*848ORDER
MOODY R. TIDWELL, III, Judge:
This case is before the court on plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendant’s counterclaims or, alternatively, for a more definite statement. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and grants plaintiff’s motion for a more definite statement.
FACTS
Plaintiff, BMY, is an unincorporated division of Harsco Corporation that designs, manufactures, and sells self-propelled combat weapons systems. On March 24, 1982, plaintiff contracted with defendant to manufacture self-propelled howitzers for the United States Army. Plaintiff…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Karen S. Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exchange ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- Den Ex Dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Ex Parte Bakelite Corp'n.Supreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Stearns v. PageSupreme Court of the United States · 1849
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Canpro Investments, Ltd v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
- US Ex Rel. O'Keefe v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1996
- First Hartford Corp. Pension Plan & Trust v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1998
- 3rd Eye Surveillance, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
- Eddie A. Curtis v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996