Legal Opinion
Navajo Nation v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided February 4, 2000No. 93-763LPublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BASKIR, Judge.
Mr. Donald Hodel, Secretary of the Interi- or during the critical period of this dispute, offered this denunciation of ex parte contacts in his deposition:
The decision-maker isn’t suppose (sic) to talk to one of the two sides while he is in the process of making a decision or may be in the process of making a decision. And it goes to fundamental fairness.
I should go further in saying one other thing, that the ex parte communication taints the subsequent decision. So that even if you would have made exactly the same decision, you can never establish that, if you are…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- United States v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Meinhard v. SalmonNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- United States v. Navajo NationSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- United States v. Navajo NationSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Peabody Coal Company Peabody Western Coal Company Peabody Holding Group, Inc. v. Navajo NationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Navajo Nation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Navajo Nation v. Peabody Holding Co., Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2002
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.