Legal Opinion

Schortmann v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided April 9, 2008No. 06-383TPublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ALLEGRA, Judge.

“It is of the highest importance in the art of detection to be able to recognise out of a number of facts which are incidental and *2which are vital.”____ “Is there any point to which you wish to draw my attention?”
“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.” “The dog did nothing in the night time.” “That was the curious incident,” remarked Holmes.1

This action, which is before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment, has its genesis in a settlement entered into by the parties to resolve a claim for refund. The parties dispute whether the plaintiffs,…

2Cases cited64 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
  4. Indian Towing Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1955
  5. Lynch v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1934

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Exxon Mobil Corp. & Affiliated Cos. v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012
  2. Ford Motor Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2014
  3. Xp Vehicles, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
  4. Jay Cashman, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
  5. Schortmann v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010

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

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

Powered by the Exa API