Legal Opinion
Honeywell International Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided June 23, 2006No. 02-1909CPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION’S MOTION TO INTERVENE
BRADEN, Judge.
For the reasons discussed herein, the court has determined that L-3 Communications Corporation (“L-3 Communications”) may intervene as a matter of right, pursuant to RCFC 24(a)(2). In the event that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may be asked to review this ruling, the court has determined, in the alternative, that L-3 Communications has established the requirements for permissive intervention, pursuant to RCFC 24(b)(2).
RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Trbovich v. United Mine WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
- William E. Nuesse, Commissioner of Banks, State of Wisconsin v. William Camp, Comptroller of the CurrencyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1967
- Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Smith v. GaleSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Wolfchild v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- Honeywell International Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
- Apotex Inc. v. U.S. Food & Drug AdministrationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2007
- Uusi, LLC, and Oldnar Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
- Anchor Tank Lines, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.