Notes of Decisions
Kevin Brott v. United States, 858 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Congress’s conditional waiver of sovereign immunity from suits for money damages against the government also includes the requirement that claims brought in the Court of Federal Claims, or under the Little Tucker Act, shall be tried without a jury.”
Jackson v. Onondaga Cnty., 549 F. Supp. 2d 204 (N.D.N.Y. 2008).
“8 (Here, I note that Plaintiffs’ Complaint contains a verification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 174 9 ) In any event, to be sufficient to create a factual issue for purposes of a summary judgment motion, an affidavit must, among other things, not be conclusory.”
Synergy Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 133 Fed. Cl. 716 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
“132, 136 (2014), including the records maintained by the Court of Federal Claims, 28 U.S.C. § 174 (b) (2012); Pratt & Whitney Canada Inc.”
Penzel Constr. Co. v. Jackson R-2 Sch. Dist., 544 S.W.3d 214 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
“See 28 U.S.C. § 174 (a). Whenever there are no "equitable adjustments" to be made for the plaintiff's own errors, however, the calculation using the TCM or the modified TCM should reach the same result.”
Pueblo of Laguna v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 133 (Fed. Cl. 2004).
“For example, in 28 U.S.C. § 174 (2000), Congress unambiguously indicated that this court exercises “judicial power,” and, in 28 U.”
In re Klitsch, 587 B.R. 287 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2018).
“The more frequently utilized alternative is signing an unsworn declaration under 28 U.S.C. § 174 . If it is not so verified or signed with an unsworn declaration, then clearly the applicable rule has been violated.”
DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc. v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 435 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
“268, 272 (1988) (explaining that the right of public access applies to records in criminal, as well as civil, adjudicatory proceedings); 28 U.S.C. § 174 (b) (providing that “all decisions of the Court of Federal Claims shall be preserved and open to inspection”).”
Miller-Holzwarth, Inc. v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 153 (Fed. Cl. 1999).
“” 28 U.S.C. § 174 (1994). Discretion is afforded the trial court to determine whether the circumstances warrant overcoming the common law right of public access to judicial records; however, “that discretion is circumscribed by the presumption that the public shall have access…”
Roman-Perez v. Operating Partners Co. (In re Roman-Perez), 527 B.R. 844 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2015).
“Please take judicial notice of Mr. Juan M. Suarez Cobo’s motions where [sic ] all were sent to a prior attorney that had requested withdrawal months before and even though such request had been granted by the court.”
Int'l Elec. Corp. v. United State, 2 Cl. Ct. 570 (Ct. Cl. 1983).
“27 (to be codified in 28 U.S.C. § 174 ). Therefore, an interlocutory ruling of the Court of Claims in a case still pending is not, strictly speaking, “precedent.”
Concepcion-Navedo v. Putnam LAC Holding, LLC, 212 F. Supp. 3d 297 (D.P.R. 2015).
“The related filings also before us are defendant PFPR-2’s Opposition to Remand with an Exhibit Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 174 filed on June 16, 2014 (D.”
Torres Advanced Enter. Solutions, LLC v. United States, No. 17-868 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 2, 2017).
“132, 136 (2014), including the records maintained by the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Court of Federal Claims”), 28 U.S.C. § 174 (b) (2012); Pratt & Whitney Canada Inc.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.