Cases

316 S.W.3d 665 (2009) Tiberiu KISS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 05-07-01149-CR. Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. December 11, 2009. Discretionary Review Refused August 25, 2010. *667 Katherine A. Drew, Dallas County Public Defender's Office, Bradley K. Lollar, Dallas, for Appellant. C

334 S.W.3d 46 (2008) Ussly Ray REVELS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. No. 05-07-01555-CR. Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. December 11, 2008. *48 Bradley K. Lollar, Katherine A. Drew, Dallas County Public Defender's Office, Dallas, for Appellant. Craig Watkins, Dallas County Dist. Atty., Patricia Poppoff Nob

MEMORANDUM OPINION Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION In the early 2000s, the United States engaged in a war in Iraq, which persisted for several years. To support the military on the ground, the United States government contracted with civilian companies to provide a wide variety of services. Defendant Kellogg,

333 S.W.3d 615 (2010) David Wayne JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. Nos. 05-07-01188-CR, 05-07-01189-CR. Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. May 29, 2009. Rehearing Overruled June 29, 2009. Discretionary Review Refused February 3, 2010. *617 Kathleen A. Walsh, Public Defender's Of

WILKINS, Circuit Judge: Relator-Appellant Julie McBride (“McBride”) appeals the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees Halliburton Company; Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.; Service Employees International Inc.; Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.; and KBR Technical Services, Inc. (collectively, “KBR”). McBride asserted violations of the False

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM order. ORDER PER CURIAM: This case returns to us on remand after the Supreme Court granted Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.’s petition'for certiorari, and reversed in part and. affirmed in part our decision in United States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., 710 F.3d 171 (4th Cir.2013). The only issue left for resolution is whethe

[Resolving Does. 151 & 152] OPINION & ORDER JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: In its March 6, 2014 Opinion and Order, the Court granted Plaintiff-Relator Bar-ko’s motion to compel the production of 89 documents. The KBR Defendants had withheld the documents on the basis of attorney-client privilege

MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG, District Judge. Plaintiffs filed this action against their employer, Wackenhut Services LLC, and its affiliates, claiming that Defendants owed them unpaid compensation for their work on American military bases overseas. In response, the Wackenhut Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Liti

*716 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER CHRISTINE O.C. MILLER, Judge. This ease, the first of the Iraq war contract cases to proceed to trial in the United States Court of Federal Claims, involves a claim for the provision of dining facility (“DFAC”) services for the United States Army (the “Army”) at Camp Anaconda, one of the largest United States

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES ex rel. BENJAMIN  CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HALLIBURTON CO.; KELLOGG BROWN  No. 12-1011 & ROOT SERVICES, INC.; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL, INC.; KBR, INC., Defendants-Appellees.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virg

OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 154] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: In this qui tam case, Plaintiff-Relator Harry Barko disputes the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product claims made by Defendants Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., KBR Technical Services, Inc., Kellogg, Brown & Root Engineering Corporation, Kellogg, Brown & Root International,

OPINION AND ORDER [Resolving Docs. 180, 216, 217] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: In an earlier order, the Court concluded that KBR’s Code of Business Conduct (“COBC”) documents were not attorney-client privileged because they were not created for the primary purpose of securing legal advice.

*236 MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN M. FACCIOLA, United States Magistrate Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This is a qui tam action brought by Julie McBride, the relator, against Halliburton Company and other corporate defendants, including the company re

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER SCULLIN, Senior Judge I. INTRODUCTION 1 Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the first and second claims in Relator McBride’s third amended complaint.

MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG, District Judge. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant Wackenhut Services LLC as firefighters in Iraq and Afghanistan. They brought this action against Wackenhut and its affiliates, as well as against other companies, alleging that they were unlawfully denied various forms of employment benefits and compe

JUDGMENT This case was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and on the briefs and oral arguments of the parties. The Court has afforded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See Fed. R. App. P. 36; D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s judg

Justice ALITOdelivered the opinion of the Court. Wars have often provided "exceptional opportunities" for fraud on the United States Government. See United States v. Smith, 342 U.S. 225 , 228,

ORDER & OPINION JOE BILLY McDADE, United States Senior District Judge This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. 37). The Complaint (Doc. 1) consists of a single count alleging violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et. seq. (the “FCA”). Defendants assert that the Complaint should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

458 S.E.2d 460 (1995) Craig GIBSON, An Infant, etc., et al. v. RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL, INC., etc., et al. Record No. 941446. Supreme Court of Virginia. June 9, 1995. *461 Brenda S. Fisher, Hampton (C. Jerry Franklin, Chandler, Franklin & O'Bryan, on briefs), for appellants. Carolyn P. Oast, Norfolk (George H. Heilig, Jr.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MILLER, Judge. This matter is before the court after argument on plaintiffs Motion To Dismiss the Counterclaims of Defendant the United States of America for failure to state claims for which relief can be granted pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(6) and failure to properly plead fraud under RCFC 9(b). Plaintiffs motion calls into question the level of proof required for each of def