Ampetrol, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
BRUGGINK, Judge.
Defendant has moved to stay this case pending the outcome of criminal proceedings in United States v. Joseph Reisch, Cr. No. 93-598 (E.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff has filed an opposition. At defendant’s request and with plaintiffs concurrence, argument on the motion was heard in camera. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.
The power of courts to stay proceedings is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Landis v. North American Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Peden v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1975
- Litton Systems, Inc.United States Court of Claims · 1978
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1991
- Luigi Goldstein, Inc.United States Court of Claims · 1978
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Government Technical Services, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011