Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Directv Group, Inc. v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided January 26, 2012No. 2010-5031Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGajarsa, Circuit Judge

I join Part I of the majority opinion with the understanding that Original CAS 413.50 is applied pursuant to a stipulation by the parties. Unfortunately, the majority fails to apply the appropriate textual interpretation of the statute and regulations at issue in Part II. The majority thereby obtains an outcome-driven result that is contrary to the CASB authorizing legislation and the FAR, is contrary to Supreme Court precedent regarding the interpretation of statutory and regulatory texts, and is not supported by the factual record. The majority is complicating the legal analysis. The issue…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
  3. Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. MerrillSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  4. United States v. StevensSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  5. Rock Island, Arkansas & Louisiana Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1920

16 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