Ervin & Associates, Inc. v. United States (2004)

green · 10 citation events across 2 courts. Showing the 7 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 7

Sort: By significance · Most recent

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

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

To support its argument that the government obtains technical rights when it funds specific projects, the plaintiff cites to Ervin & Associates, Inc. v. United States, 59 Fed.Cl. 267, 296 (2004).

green Hirel Connectors, Inc. v. United States (2006)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

Were this to be the ease, contracting officer decisions would be required on the claims and a district court would not, in any event, have jurisdiction over them. 41 U.S.C. §§ 605 , 609; see Megapulse, Inc. v. Lewis, 672 F.2d 959, 969 (D.C.Cir.1982) (non-monetary relief only); Ervin & Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 59 Fed.Cl. 267, 288 (2004).

green General Electric Co. v. United States (2004)

Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.

Ervin & Assoc., Inc. v. United States, 59 Fed.Cl. 267, 297 (2004); Capital Properties, Inc. v. United States, 56 Fed.Cl. 427, 436 (2003).

green FlightSafety International, Inc. (2022)

Cited (see also) · A.S.B.C.A. · signal: see, e.g.

See, e.g., Ervin & Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 59 Fed.

green Dyncorp International, LLC v. United States (2016)

Cited · Fed. Cl. · signal: accord

Similarly, “sections of the FAR which limit the government’s rights in proprietary data developed by contractors have consistently been interpreted in this vein.” Id.; accord Ervin & Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 59 Fed.Cl. 267 (2004) (holding that the government obtained unlimited data rights when the contractor failed to mark delivered data with a “Limited Rights Notice” as prescribed in 48 C.F.R. § 52.227-14 ).

holding that the government obtained unlimited data rights when the contractor failed to mark delivered data with a “Limited Rights Notice” as prescribed in 48 C.F.R. § 52.227-14

green Night Vision Corp. v. United States (2005)

Cited · Fed. Cl. · signal: see

See Ervin & Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 59 Fed.Cl. 267 (2004) (notwithstanding contractor’s “oral statements, letters, and emails” allegedly asserting protection of proprietary data, the contractor’s failure to mark data with the “Limited Rights Notice” prescribed in 48 C.F.R. § 52.227-14 resulted in government obtaining unlimited data rights); Gen.

notwithstanding contractor’s “oral statements, letters, and emails” allegedly asserting protection of proprietary data, the contractor’s failure to mark data with the “Limited Rights Notice” prescribed in 48 C.F.R. § 52.227-14 resulted in government obtaining unlimited data rights

green Hamilton Securities Advisory Services, Inc. v. United States (2004)

Cited · Fed. Cl. · signal: see

See Ervin and Assocs. v. United States, 59 Fed.Cl. 267, 276-77, 279, 286 (2004).