Legal Opinion

BMY-Combat Systems Division of Harsco Corp. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided July 30, 1992No. 90-252CPublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Karen S. Reynolds v. Army and Air Force Exchange ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
  3. Den Ex Dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1856
  4. Ex Parte Bakelite Corp'n.Supreme Court of the United States · 1929
  5. Stearns v. PageSupreme Court of the United States · 1849

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Canpro Investments, Ltd v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
  2. US Ex Rel. O'Keefe v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1996
  3. First Hartford Corp. Pension Plan & Trust v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1998
  4. 3rd Eye Surveillance, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
  5. Eddie A. Curtis v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API