⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

20 opinions for “LOYAL SOURCE GOVERNMENT SERVICES, LLC v. United States”

United States Court of Federal Claims · 2025-04-08 · Published · cited 0×
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 24-1001 Filed: March 31, 2025 Re-issued: April 8, 2025 1 ________________________________________ ) LOYAL SOURCE GOVERNMENT SERVICES, ) LLC, ) )
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2025-04-08 · Published · cited 0×
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 24-1945 Filed: March 31, 2025 Re-issued: April 8, 2025 1 ________________________________________ ) LOYAL SOURCE GOVERNMENT SERVICES, ) LLC, ) )
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2016-12-16 · Published · cited 0× · 130 Fed. Cl. 211; 2016 U.S. Claims LEXIS 2079; 2016 WL 7974999
Post-award bid protest; Price analysis; Price realism; waiver. OPINION BRUGGINK, Judge. This is a post-award bid protest of the Army’s decision not to award one of several contracts for nursing, medical, and ancillary services in Hawaii and Guam to the plaintiff, Global Dynamics, LLC (“Global”). Oral argument on the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record was held
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2015-04-24 · Published · cited 0× · 120 Fed. Cl. 767; 2015 WL 1870059
Bid Protest; CICA Stay Override Challenge; Small Business Set-Aside; Corrective Action; Agency Decision to Award Competitive Bridge Contract; Motion to Dismiss; Mootness. OPINION AND ORDER WHEELER, Judge. In this bid protest, Plaintiff Charles F. Day & Associates, LLC (“CF Day”) challenges the March 11, 2016 deci
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2017-01-25 · Published · cited 0×
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 16-1311C (Originally filed: December 16, 2016) (Reissued: January 25, 2017)1 ********************** GLOBAL DYNAMICS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Post-award bid protest; Price analysis; Price realism; waiver. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, LOYAL SOURCE GOVERNM
Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · 2018-02-14 · Published · cited 8× · 550 S.W.3d 683
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS § HERIBERTO SALAS, INDIVIDUALLY No. 08-15-00383-CV AND D/B/A ICELAND § REFRIDGERATION, Appeal from §
District Court, District of Columbia · 2018-12-03 · Published · cited 0×
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PATRICIA D. LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 15-521 (JEB) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Patricia Diane Lewis had worked in human resources for the District of Columbia’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for
Supreme Court of the United States · 2024-06-21 · Published · cited 375× · 602 U.S. 680
PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 602 U. S. Part 1 Pages 680–778 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 21, 2024 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are
Supreme Court of the United States · 2024-06-21 · Published · cited 465× · 602 U.S. 680
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2025-05-09 · Published · cited 74× · 137 F.4th 743
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-50048 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:20-cr- 00387-AB-1 v. STEVEN DUARTE, AKA Shorty, OPINION Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California André Birotte
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2008-07-31 · Published · cited 67× · 82 Fed. Cl. 636; 102 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5442; 2008 U.S. Claims LEXIS 230; 2008 WL 2968170
OPINION AND ORDER MILLER, Judge. In May 2000 members of the Welles family sold half of their stock in the family business, Therma-Tru Corporation (“Therma-Tru”) of Toledo, Ohio. That portion of the Therma-Tru stock was held by Stobie Creek Investments, LLC (“Stobie Creek”), a partnership controlled by members of the Welles family. These cases, before the court after trial, are complaints for re
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2024-09-04 · Published · cited 0× · 115 F.4th 1002
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-50314 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 3:22-cr-01581- GPC-2 JESUS PEREZ GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-50316 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2019-04-23 · Published · cited 4× · 441 P.3d 1107
WINCHESTER, J., dissenting: ¶ 1 I respectfully dissent. It is important to point out what 23 O.S.2011, § 61.2 does not do: (1) it does not cap damages in cases of wrongful death; (2) it does not cap economic damages for lost wages; (3) it does not cap economic damages for medical expenses; and (4) it does not bar the first $350,000 of non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering. With the passage of § 61.2, the Legislature dete
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2019-12-20 · Published · cited 0×
In the Chuted States Court of Federal Clans No. 19-1806C Filed: December 20, 2019 kok ok RR Hk OK Rk KK OR kk kK NICOLE RENEE CROSBY, Plaintiff, Vv. OFFICER KIEGER, OFFICER WRIGLEY, Pro Se Plaintiff; Subject-Matter PUBLIC DEFENDER MICHELLE Jur * &£ + © &*# &£ & &F #® HF H H HH HF HF BF EF Jurisdiction. AGEE, CANDIE BEADZE, DAVID VICTOR CROSBY, STATE OF IDAHO, Defendants.' * *¢« #£ ek #k kK AK KE KK KO EK OF K EK K K KK ORDER HORN, J. On November 25, 2019, pro se plaintiff Nicole Renee C
District Court, District of Columbia · 2019-03-12 · Published · cited 4× · 365 F. Supp. 3d 172
Judith Gail Dein, United States Magistrate Judge *176I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on the defendant the United States Department of Agriculture's ("USDA") Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 52). The plaintiff Rifat M. Cheema d/b/a/ Cheema's Supermarket ("Cheema's") has filed this action against
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2019-04-23 · Published · cited 4× · 2019 OK 28
OSCN Found Document:BEASON v. I. E. MILLER SERVICES, INC. BEASON v. I. E. MILLER SERVICES, INC.2019 OK 28Case Number: 114301Decided: 04/23/2019THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Cite as: 2019 OK 28, __ P.3d __ NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO RE
District Court, D. New Mexico · 2018-11-21 · Published · cited 0× · 356 F. Supp. 3d 1215
JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss *1219Counts 1 and 5 of the Indictment, filed September 24, 2018 (Doc. 72)("Motion"). The primary issues are whether: (i) a Navajo Nation Department of Public Safety ("NDPS") officer, Houston Largo, was a fe
Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2024-01-25 · Published · cited 0×
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE PRINCIPAL GROWTH STRATEGIES, ) LLC, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2019-0431-JTL ) AGH PARENT LLC, et al., ) )
Supreme Court of the United States · 2024-06-21 · Published · cited 0× · 602 U.S. 680
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2020-06-22 · Published · cited 47× · 963 F.3d 163
18-2750 (L) United States of America v. Napout et. ano UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2019 (Argued: November 7, 2019 Decided: June 22, 2020) Docket Nos. 18-2750 (L), 18-2820 (Con) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,