Legal Opinion

Tamerlane, Ltd. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided April 3, 2008No. 05-677CPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER ON MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT

CHRISTINE O.C. MILLER, Judge.

On February 29, 2008, this court issued its supplemental opinion to the May 18, 2007 opinion dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction the breach of contract claims of plaintiffs, Park Terrace Limited (“Park Terrace”) and Mullica West Limited (“Mullica”) (collectively, “moving plaintiffs”), and dismissing Count II of the complaint as to all four plaintiffs on the merits. See Tamerlane, Ltd. v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 618 (2008); Tamerlane, Ltd. v. United States, 76 Fed.Cl. 512 (2007). On March 14, 2008, plaintiffs Park…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Caldwell, Iii v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
  2. Yuba Natural Resources, Inc. v. The United States, Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
  3. Fru-Con Construction Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1999
  4. Bishop v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1992
  5. Stockton East Water District v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Tamerlane, Ltd. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
  2. Parkwood Associates Ltd. Partnership v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
  3. Tamerlane, Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
  4. Carolina Power & Light Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API