Cluster 6765717

green · 50 citation events across 3 courts. Showing the 34 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 34

green Contract Services, Inc. v. United States (2012)

Quote Authority · Fed. Cl.

Servs., Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 1 , 9 n. 14 (2007) ("The court cites to the versions of the FAR and the Code of Federal Regulations ostensibly in effect at the time the Army issued the solicitation....”); Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 580 (2000) (“Any new bidding process would be in accord with the publicly available ... regulations in effect at the time the RFP was issued....”). .

“Any new bidding process would be in accord with the publicly available ... regulations in effect at the time the RFP was issued....”

green Mission Critical Solutions v. United States (2012)

Quote Authority · Fed. Cl. · 2 citations in this opinion

Whether or not defendant violated the court’s February 2010 injunction depends in large part on whether the 2011 contract is a new procurement — to which the current law would apply, see Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 580 (2000) (“Any new bidding process would be in accord with the publicly available ... regulations in effect at the time the RFP was issued.”) — or is the same contract or procurement that was the subject of the bid protest.

“Any new bidding process would be in accord with the publicly available ... regulations in effect at the time the RFP was issued.”

green Raytheon Company v. United States (2025)

Quote Authority · Fed. Cl.

Cl. 124, 132 (2013) (“There are no waiting periods or administrative exhaustion requirements for bid protests.”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (b)); Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.

“Plaintiff’s cause of action arises under the contracts and bid protest jurisdiction of the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (b)(1)[], which does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies for post-award bid protests.”

green Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC v. United States (2021)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

At least one decision has held, however, that a “procurement error coupled with loss of business does not necessarily require injunctive relief.” Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.

green Applied Business Management Solutions, inc.llc v. United States (2014)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

See FMC Corp. v. United States, 3 F.3d 424, 427 (Fed.Cir.1993); Gentex Corp. v. United States, 58 Fed.Cl. 634, 654 (2003); Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000) aff'd, 10 Fed.Appx. 957 (Fed.Cir.2001).

green Caddell Construction Co., Inc. v. United States (2013)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

Co. v. United States, 61 Fed.Cl. 243, 279 , opinion modified, 63 Fed.Cl. 141 (2004); Bean Stuyvesant, L.L.C. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. at 320-21 (citing Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000), aff'd, 10 Fed.Appx. 957 (Fed.Cir.2001)); ATA Def.

green Afghan American Army Services Corp. v. United States (2012)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

See FMC Corp. v. United States, 3 F.3d 424, 426 (Fed.Cir.1993); Gentex Corp. v. United States, 58 Fed.Cl. 634, 654 (2003); Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000).

green Guzar Mirbachakot Transportation v. United States (2012)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

See Gentex, 58 Fed.Cl. at 654 ; Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000).

green Mobile Medical International Corp. v. United States (2010)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

Co. v. United States, 61 Fed.Cl. 243, 279 , opinion modified, 63 Fed.Cl. 141 (2004); Bean Stuyvesant, L.L.C. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 303, 320-21 (2000) (citing Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000), aff'd, 10 Fed.Appx. 957 (Fed.Cir.2001)).

green Academy Facilities Management v. United States (2009)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

green Labatt Food Service, Inc. v. United States (2008)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

green Career Training Concepts, Inc. v. United States (2008)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

Co., Ltd. v. United States, 61 Fed.Cl. 243, 279 , opinion modified, 63 Fed.Cl. 141 (2004); Bean Stuyvesant, L.L.C. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 303, 320-21 (2000) (citing Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000), aff’d, 10 Fed.Appx. 957 (Fed.Cir.2001)); ATA Defense Indus., Inc. v. United States, 38 Fed.Cl. 489 , 505 n. 10 (1997) (“ ‘The standard for a preliminary injunction is essentially the same as for a permanent injunction with the exception that …

green KSD, Inc. v. United States (2006)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

Cl. at 279; Bean Stuyvesant, L.L.C. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. at 320-21 (citing Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000), aff'd, 10 Fed.Appx. 957 (Fed.Cir.2001)); ATA Defense Indus., Inc. v. United States, 38 Fed.Cl. 489 , 505 n. 10 (1997) (“ ‘The standard for a preliminary injunction is essentially the same as for a permanent injunction with the exception that the plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits rather than actual success…

green Avtel Services, Inc. v. Unites States (2005)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

Recovery, Inc. v. United States, 64 Fed.Cl. 150, 159 (2005); Hunt Building Co., Ltd. v. United States, 61 Fed.Cl. 243, 279 (2004), opinion modified, 63 Fed.Cl. 141 (2004); Bean Stuyvesant, L.L.C. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. at 320-21 (citing Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000), aff'd, 10 Fed.Appx. 957 (Fed.Cir.2001)); ATA Defense Indus., Inc. v. United States, 38 Fed.Cl. 489 , 505 n. 10 (1997) (“ ‘The standard for a preliminary injunction is ess…

green KSEND v. United States (2005)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

Recovery, Inc. v. United States, 64 Fed.Cl. 150, 159 (2005); Hunt Building Co., Ltd. v. United States, 61 Fed.Cl. 243, 279 (2004), opinion modified on other grounds, 63 Fed.Cl. 141 (2004); Bean Stuyvesant, L.L.C. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 303, 320-21 (2000) (citing Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000), aff'd, 10 Fed.Appx. 957 (Fed.Cir. 2001)); ATA Defense Indus., Inc. v. United States, 38 Fed.Cl. 489 , 505 n. 10 (1997) (“ ‘The standard for a pr…

green Conscoop-Consorzia Fra Cooperative Di Prod. E Lavoro v. United States (2004)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

Bean Stuyvesant, L.L.C. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 303, 320-21 (2000) (citing Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000), aff'd, 10 Fed.Appx. 957 (Fed.Cir.2001)); see also ATA Defense Indus., Inc. v. United States, 38 Fed.Cl. 489 , 505 n. 10 (1997) (“ ‘The standard for a preliminary injunction is essentially the same as for a permanent injunction with the exception that the plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits rather than actual s…

green Overstreet Electric Co. v. United States (2003)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

See also ABF Freight, 55 Fed.Cl. at 396; Bean Stuyvesant, L.L.C. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 303, 320-21 (citing Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000)); Cincom, 37 Fed.Cl. at 268 .

green CSE Construction Co. v. United States (2003)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

Bean Stuyvesant, L.L.C. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 303, 320-21 (2000) (citing Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000), affd, 10 Fed.Appx. 957 (Fed.Cir. 2001)); see also ATA Defense Indus., Inc. v. United States, 38 Fed.Cl. 489 , 505 n. 10 (1997) (“ ‘The standard for a preliminary injunction is essentially the same as for a permanent injunction with the exception that the plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits rather than actual s…

green Vantage Associates, Inc. v. United States (2003)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

Bean Stuyvesant, L.L.C. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. at 320 -21 (citing Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000), aff'd, 10 Fed.Appx. 957 (Fed.Cir.2001)); see also ATA Defense Indus., Inc. v. United States, 38 Fed.Cl. 489 , 505 n. 10 (1997) (“ ‘The standard for a preliminary injunction is essentially the same as for a permanent injunction with the exception that the plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits rather than actual success.’…

green North Carolina Division of Services for the Blind v. United States (2002)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000) (citations omitted); Ellsworth, 45 Fed.Cl. at 393 (citation omitted).

citations omitted

green Computer Sciences Corp. v. United States (2001)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

Despite plaintiff’s assertions, however, "procurement error coupled with loss of business does not necessarily require injunctive relief.’’ Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000).

green Maintenance Engineers v. United States (2001)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

Bean Stuyvesant, L.L.C. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. at 320-21 (citing Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000) (citing FMC Corp. v. United States, 3 F.3d at 427 ), aff'd, No. 00-5103, 2001 WL 638450 (Fed.Cir.

green Interstate Rock Products, Inc. v. United States (2001)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000) (citations omitted); Ellsworth Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 45 Fed.Cl. 388, 393 (1999) (citation omitted).

citations omitted

green Dynacs Engineering Co. v. United States (2001)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000); United Int’l Investigative Servs., Inc. v. United States, 41 Fed.Cl. 312, 323 (1998).

green MCS Management, Inc. v. United States (2000)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

Bean Stuyvesant, L.L.C. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 303, 321-22 (2000); citing Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000).

green Bean Stuyvesant, L.L.C. v. United States (2000)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000) (citations omitted); Ellsworth, 45 Fed.Cl. at 393 (citation omitted).

citations omitted

green Myers Investigative & Security Services, Inc. v. United States (2000)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

See 15 U.S.C. § 637 (a); Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 573 (2000).

green Supplycore Inc. v. United States (2022)

Cited · Fed. Cl. · signal: see

See Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.

green Electronic Data System, LLC v. United States (2010)

Cited · Fed. Cl. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

See Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571 , 580 n. 23 (2000), aff'd, 10 Fed.Appx. 957 (Fed.Cir.2001).

green Ashbritt, Inc. v. United States (2009)

Cited · Fed. Cl. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

See Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000), aff'd, 10 Fed.Appx. 957 (Fed.Cir.2001); cf. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391-93 , 126 S.Ct. 1837 , 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006) (rejecting a “general rule” favoring or disfavoring injunctive relief, and applying a four-part test employed by courts of equity).

green Rochester City Lines, Co. v. City of Rochester, First Transit, Inc. (2015)

Cited (see also) · Minn. · signal: see also · 2 citations in this opinion

O’Malley v. Ulland Bros., 549 N.W.2d 889, 892 (Minn.1996) (noting that to defeat summary judgment a fact must be “material” and to be material, the fact must “affect the outcome or result of a case”); see also Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 579 (2000) (concluding that the agency erred but affirming its decision because “to prevail in a protest the protester must show not only a significant error in the procurement process, but also that the error preju…

concluding that the agency erred but affirming its decision because “to prevail in a protest the protester must show not only a significant error in the procurement process, but also that the error prejudiced it.” (citation omitted)

green Centech Group, Inc. v. United States (2007)

Cited (see also) · Fed. Cl. · signal: see also

Gentex Corp. v. United States, 58 Fed.Cl. 634, 654 (2003) (citing Bean Stuyvesant, L.L.C. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 303, 320-21 (2000); see also Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000) aff'd, 10 Fed.Appx. 957 (Fed.Cir.2001)).

green Four Points by Sheraton v. United States (2005)

Cited (see also) · Fed. Cl. · signal: see also

See Bean Stuyvesant, L.L.C. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 303, 320-21 (2000); see also Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000) aff'd, 10 Fed.Appx. 957 (Fed.Cir.2001).

green Gentex Corp. v. United States (2003)

Cited (see also) · Fed. Cl. · signal: see also

See Bean Stuyvesant, L.L.C. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 303, 320-21 (2000); see also Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 571, 582 (2000) aff'd, 10 Fed.Appx. 957 (Fed.Cir.2001).