green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
11.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…when the contract's language is unambiguous it must be given its 'plain and ordinary' meaning and the court may not look to extrinsic evidence to interpret its provisions.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Universal Protection Service, Lp v. United States
(2×)
when the contract's language is unambiguous it must be given its 'plain and ordinary' meaning and the court may not look to extrinsic evidence to interpret its provisions.
discussed
Cited "see"
Rivas-Lopez v. Rivera
See Sines v. Wilner, 609 F.3d 1070 , 1073 n. 1 (10th Cir.2010) (because relief by mandamus may be available when a prisoner believes that a district court is taking too long to resolve a § 2255 motion, “one could conclude that delay does not render § 2255 an inadequate remedy”), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1182 , 131 S.Ct. 997 , 178 L.Ed.2d 832 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stathis v. United States
(2×)
See Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States, 596 F.3d 817, 824 (Fed.Cir.2010), ce rt. denied, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 997 , 178 L.Ed.2d 826 (2011); LAI Servs., Inc. v. Gates, 573 F.3d 1306, 1314 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g denied (Fed.Cir.2009); Barron Bancshares, Inc. v. United States, 366 F.3d 1360, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2004); Foley Co. v. United States, 11 F.3d 1032, 1034 (Fed.Cir.1993); Eden Isle Marina, Inc. v. United States, 113 Fed.Cl. at 483-84 ; Bell/Heery v. United States, 106 Fed.Cl. 300, 309 (2012), aff'd, 739 F.3d 1324 (Fed.Cir.2014), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed.Cir.2014); Ste…
discussed
Cited "see"
Threshold Technologies, Inc. v. United States
(2×)
See Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States, 596 F.3d 817, 830 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed.Cir.2010), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 997 , 178 L.Ed.2d 826 (2011) (emphasis added); see also Metcalf Const. Co., Inc. v. United States, 742 F.3d 984, 990 (Fed.Cir.2014) (“ ‘Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and enforcement.’” (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 205 (1981))); Bell/Heery v. United States, 739 F.3d at 1334 (“Implied in every contract is a duty of good faith and fair d…
discussed
Cited "see"
Seven Resorts, Inc. v. United States
(2×)
See Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States, 596 F.3d 817, 824 (Fed.Cir.2010), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 997 , 178 L.Ed.2d 826 (2011); LAI Servs., Inc. v. Gates, 573 F.3d 1306, 1314 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g denied (Fed.Cir.2009); Barron Bancshares, Inc. v. United States, 366 F.3d 1360, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2004); Foley Co. v. United States, 11 F.3d 1032, 1034 (Fed.Cir.1993); Sterling, Winchester & Long, L.L.C. v. United States, 83 Fed.Cl. 179, 183 (2008), aff'd, 326 Fed.Appx. 568 (Fed.Cir.2009).
discussed
Cited "see"
GULF GROUP GENERAL ENTERPRISES CO. W.L.L., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant
(2×)
See Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States, 72 Fed.Cl. 460, 480 (2006) (citing Chain Belt Co. v. United States, 127 Ct.Cl. 38, 58 , 115 F.Supp. 701, 714 (1953)), recons., 81 Fed.Cl. 235 (2007), and recons. in part, 81 Fed.Cl. 733 (2008), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 596 F.3d 817 (Fed.Cir.), and reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed.Cir.2010), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 997 , 178 L.Ed.2d 826 (2011).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Javier Reyes
See United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 474 (5th Cir.2010), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 997 , 178 L.Ed.2d 832 (2011); United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir.2006).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
American Auto Logistics, Lp v. United States
(2×)
See CBY Design Builders v. United States, 105 Fed.Cl. at 327 (citing Banknote Corp. of Am., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d at 1353); see also Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States, 596 F.3d 817, 824 (Fed.Cir.), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 997 , 178 L.Ed.2d 826 (2011); TEG-Paradigm Envtl., Inc. v. United States, 465 F.3d 1329, 1338 (Fed.Cir.2006) (“When the contract’s language is unambiguous it must be given its ‘plain and ordinary5 meaning and the court may not look to extrinsic evidence to interpret its provisions.” (quo…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Benet Schmidt
Moreover, although we “may consider the extent of the deviation, [we] must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” 16 To be sure, “[a] major departure should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one.” But “[t]he fact that the appellate court might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” 17 Ultimately, “[a] non- Guideline sentence unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sente…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Benet Schmidt
Moreover, although we “may consider the extent of the deviation, [we] must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” 16 To be sure, “[a] major departure should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one.” But “[t]he fact that the appellate court might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” 17 Ultimately, “[a] non- Guideline sentence unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sente…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Benet Schmidt
Moreover, although we “may consider the extent of the deviation, [we] must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” 16 To be sure, “[a] major departure should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one.” But “[t]he fact that the appellate court might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” 17 Ultimately, “[a] non- Guideline sentence unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sente…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Jean-Louis v. U.S. Penitentiary
See e.g., Sines v. Wilner, 609 F.3d 1070, 1073 (10th Cir.2010), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 997 , 178 L.Ed.2d 832 (2011); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (e).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Horn & Associates, Inc. v. United States
(2×)
Bank, FSB v. United States, 323 F.3d 1035, 1038 (Fed.Cir.2003))); see also Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States, 596 F.3d 817, 824 (Fed.Cir.2010), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 997 , 178 L.Ed.2d 826 (2011); Barron Bancshares, Inc. v. United States, 366 F.3d 1360, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2004) (“If the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their plain meaning — extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to interpret them.”); King v. Dep’t of Navy, 130 F.3d 1031, 1033 (Fed.Cir.1997) (“If ambiguity is found, or i…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Chapman Law Firm, LPA v. United States
(2×)
Bank, FSB v. United States, 323 F.3d 1035, 1038 (Fed.Cir.2003))); see also Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States, 596 F.3d 817, 824 (Fed.Cir.2010), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 997 , 178 L.Ed.2d 826 (2011); Barron Bancshares, Inc. v. United States, 366 F.3d 1360, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2004) (“If the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their plain meaning — extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to interpret them.”); King v. Dep’t of Navy, 130 F.3d 1031, 1033 (Fed.Cir.1997) (“If ambiguity is found, or i…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Adrian Jiminez-Garcia
See, e.g., United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 475-76 (5th Cir.2010) (affirming a 216-month sentence when the applicable guidelines range was 46 to 57 months), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 997 , 178 L.Ed.2d 832 (2011); United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349-50 (5th Cir.2008) (affirming concurrent terms of 120 months and 180 months of imprisonment from a range of 41 to 51 months); United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 526 F.3d 804, 807 (5th Cir.2008) (affirming a 72-month sentence when the upper end of the guidelines range was 30 months); United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d 430, 433, 441-4…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Normandy Apartments, Ltd. v. United States
(2×)
In so concluding, the Federal Circuit was reluctant “to find that statutory or regulatory provisions are incorporated into a contract with the government unless the contract explicitly provides for their incorporation.” Id. at 1384 ; see also Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States, 596 F.3d 817, 826 (Fed.Cir.2010), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 997 , 178 L.Ed.2d 826 (2011). 13 And it held that the contract’s general reference to a statute did not mean that an alleged violation of the statute would give rise to a breach of contract action.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Wendy Chriss
See, e.g., United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469 , 475–76 (5th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 997 (2011) (upholding sentence of 216 months where Guidelines maximum was 57 months); United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 492 (5th Cir. 2005) (upholding sentence of 120 months where Guidelines maximum was 41 months); United States v. Saldana, 427 F.3d 298 , 312–13 (5th Cir. 2005) (upholding 13 In this respect, we note further that Mrs. McElwee put the Government to its burden of proof in this case, while Chriss pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility for her conduct. 19 No. 10-30099 sentenc…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. McElwee
See, e.g., United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469, 475-76 (5th Cir.2010), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 997 , 178 L.Ed.2d 832 (2011) (upholding sentence of 216 months where Guidelines maximum was 57 months); United States v. Smith, 417 F.3d 483, 492 (5th Cir.2005) (upholding sentence of 120 months where Guidelines maximum was 41 months); United States v. Saldana, 427 F.3d 298, 312-13 (5th Cir.2005) (upholding sentence four times the Guidelines maximum despite “misgivings about the length of th[e] sentence”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mark Capener
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 10-327.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 18, 2011.
178 L. Ed. 2d 826
Published
Citer courts: Federal Claims (2)
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Same case below, 608 F.3d 392.