Your browser does not support CSS and therefor you are seeing a plain, functional page rather than the modern, designed site. The site is fully functional this way, just not as nice to look at. To see this site as it was intended, please upgrade to a modern browser like Mozilla Firefox, Opera, Netscape (7 or higher) or Internet Explorer (6 or higher).

General Jurisdiction (UNPUBLISHED)

Year
Month
Judge

Date FiledJudgeCase NameKeywords: Click here to download opinion
06/02/2008WheelerAMERICAN ORDNANCE LLC, v. THE UNITED STATES, and BAE SYSTEMS ORDNANCE SYSTEMS INC., Defendant-Intervenor (08-238C)AMERICAN ORDNANCE LLC, v. THE UNITED STATES, and BAE SYSTEMS ORDNANCE SYSTEMS INC., Defendant-Intervenor
05/29/2008WolskiRAYMOND HARRY SWENTEK, v. THE UNITED STATES, (07-208C)RAYMOND HARRY SWENTEK, v. THE UNITED STATES,
05/27/2008LettowJAMES D. BULLOCK, v. UNITED STATES, (07-871C)JAMES D. BULLOCK, v. UNITED STATES,
05/27/2008LettowPATRICIA GAVIN, et al., v. UNITED STATES, (08-53C)PATRICIA GAVIN, et al., v. UNITED STATES
05/21/2008SweeneyBRICKWOOD CONTRACTORS, INC., v. THE UNITED STATES, (06-695 C)BRICKWOOD CONTRACTORS, INC., v. THE UNITED STATES,
05/08/2008WieseSDS INTERNATIONAL, INC., v. THE UNITED STATES, and HiPk, LLC, Defendant-Intervenor (07-881C)Post-Award Bid Protest: A motion for a permanent injunction will not be granted where plaintiff failed to show that the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s technical proposal was arbitrary or capricious
04/24/2008BaskirTHE SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (06-943L)THE SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
03/31/2008SweeneyGLOBAL COMPUTER ENTERPRISES, INC., v. THE UNITED STATES, and QSS GROUP, INC., Defendant-Intervenor (08-133C)GLOBAL COMPUTER ENTERPRISES, INC., v. THE UNITED STATES, and QSS GROUP, INC., Defendant-Intervenor (08-133C)
03/27/2008LettowKERMIT A. BELGARDE, also known as KERMIT REDEAGLE-BELGARDE, v. UNITED STATES, (07-265L)KERMIT A. BELGARDE, also known as KERMIT REDEAGLE-BELGARDE, v. UNITED STATES,
03/26/2008MerowBARUCH VEGA, v. THE UNITED STATES, (07-685C)BARUCH VEGA, v. THE UNITED STATES
03/26/2008BaskirPATRICIA ANNE SALLIS, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (06-416C)PATRICIA ANNE SALLIS, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
03/19/2008SweeneyLARRY L. MOORE, v. THE UNITED STATES (07-798C)LARRY L. MOORE, v. THE UNITED STATES
03/19/2008SweeneyBRISTOL BAY AREA HEALTH CORPORATION, v. THE UNITED STATES, (07-225C)BRISTOL BAY AREA HEALTH CORPORATION, v. THE UNITED STATES,
03/06/2008FirestoneSTANLEY R. SILER, v. THE UNITED STATES, (08-099C)STANLEY R. SILER, v. THE UNITED STATES,
03/05/2008SweeneyTERESA JANE TAYLOR, v. THE UNITED STATES, (08-25C)TERESA JANE TAYLOR, v. THE UNITED STATES
03/04/2008SweeneyDARRELL BOYE et al., v. THE UNITED STATES, (07-195C)DARRELL BOYE et al., v. THE UNITED STATES,
02/29/2008SweeneyANAHEIM GARDENS, et al., v. THE UNITED STATES, (93-655C)RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NOS. 8 AND 9
02/29/2008SweeneyANAHEIM GARDENS, et al., v. THE UNITED STATES, (93-655C)RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND TO PRODUCE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS
02/29/2008SweeneyANAHEIM GARDENS, et al., v. THE UNITED STATES, (93-655C)RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS CONCERNING DOCUMENT RETENTION AND PRODUCTION MATTERS
02/29/2008SweeneyANAHEIM GARDENS, et al., v. THE UNITED STATES, (93-655C)RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES 24 AND 25