Legal Opinion
The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided December 19, 2005No. Nos. 89-218L, 89-630LPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
DAMICH, Chief Judge.
I. Introduction
This matter is before the court on Patton Boggs LLP’s (“PB”) Motion to Intervene pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) and PB’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees.1 Both Plaintiff Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (“Cherokee Nation”) and Defendant United States government (“government”) oppose PB’s motions. For the reasons discussed herein, PB’s Motion to Intervene is GRANTED. PB’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is DENIED as moot, because PB has withdrawn its claim for equitable remedies upon which the…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- TRW Inc. v. AndrewsSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Eastport Steamship Corporation v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1967
- Trbovich v. United Mine WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- CHE Consulting, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- Armour of America v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- Cherokee Nation v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- Almanza v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2018
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.