Cases

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 17-1969C (E-Filed: September 21, 2022) ) THE BOEING COMPANY, ) ) Summary Judgment; RCFC 56; Plaintiff, ) Subject Matter Jurisdiction; ) RCFC 12(b)(1); FAR 30.606; v.

Case: 19-2148 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 08/10/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ THE BOEING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2019-2148 ______________________ Appeal from the United

Case: 23-1018 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 10/04/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ THE BOEING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2023-1018 ______________________ Appeal from the United

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 17-1969C (E-Filed: May 29, 2019) ) THE BOEING COMPANY, ) ) Contract; Cost Accounting Plaintiff, ) Standards Dispute; Failure to

OPINION KLEINFELD, Senior Circuit Judge: We affirm the district court’s decision that a California law governing cleanup of a federal nuclear site violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. Because we decide that the state law impermissibly regulates and discriminates against the federal government and its contractor, we do not reach the questi

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in No. 09-1302 granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in No. 09-1298 granted limited to Question 2 presented by the petition. The case is consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.

ORDER Upon consideration of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in General Dynamics Corporation v. United States and The Boeing Company, Successor to McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1900, — L.Ed.2d - (2011), vacating this court’s judgment and remanding for further proceedings, It Is Ordered That: The mandate of this court issued on

ON MOTION ORDER Upon consideration of the parties’ joint motion to remand this case, The Boeing Company v. United States, to the United States Court of Federal Claims, case no. 00-CV-705, for further proceedings consistent with the settlement agreement reached by the parties, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. (2) Each side shal

MORITZ, Circuit Judge. Three former employees of The Boeing Company, referred to as relators in this qui tam action, brought suit under the False Claims Act (FCA) against Boeing and one of its suppliers, Ducommun, Inc. The relators claimed Boeing falsely certified that several aircraft it sold to the government complied with all applicable Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

OPINION ALLEGRA, Judge. This case is before the court following a trial in Washington, D.C. and New Orleans, Louisiana. In this patent ease, the Boeing Company (Boeing) seeks compensation from the United States, under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), for the unlawful use of U.S. Patent No. 4,840,682 (the '682 patent), which is directed to the low temperature underaging of aluminum lithium alloys. In two prior opinion

258 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2001) THE BOEING COMPANY, AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES; BOEING SALES CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.THE BOEING COMPANY, AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES, PLAINTIFF,ANDBOEING SALES CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,v.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. No. 99-35818,, No. 99-35857 UNITED STATE

OPINION & ORDER CARMAN, Judge: Before the Court is Defendant U.S. Secretary of Labor’s (“Labor” or “Defendant”) Notice of Negative Determination On Remand (“Remand Results”), ECF No. 9-1, regarding the Certification of Group Eligibility for Worker Adjustment Assistance for Former Employees of the Boeing Company, Boeing Defense and Space Divi

OPINION ALLEGRA, Judge. This patent case is before the court following an extensive trial in Washington, D.C. During initial planning, the angle of inclination of the orbit of what would become the International Space Station — its orbit relative to the equator — was set at 28.5 degrees, to coincide with the latitude of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) launch center

OPINION AND ORDER LETTOW, Judge. Rockwell Automation, Inc. (“Rockwell”) had a contract with the United States Department of Energy (“DOE” or “the government”), providing that Rockwell would manage and operate the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant (“Rocky Flats”) in Colorado, under the overall supervision of officials of DOE. The term of the contract extended from June 30, 1975, to December 31, 1989. Rockwell br

BISSELL, Circuit Judge. The Boeing Company (Boeing) appeals the decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board), Boeing Co.— Boeing Military Airplane Div., ASBCA No. 29793, 88-1 BCA ¶ 20,380 (1987) [available on WESTLAW, 1987 WL 46116], holding that all of Boeing’s bid and proposal (B & P) costs incurred to enhance its a

Opinion and Order ACOSTA, United States Magistrate Judge: Relator, Cliff Berglund, filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) alleging defendant, The Boeing Company (“Boeing”), committed fraud on the United States government pursuant to the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733, and violated the Act’s retaliation provision. In Count One of the TAC,

OPINION ALLEGRA, Judge. The Boeing Company (Boeing) seeks compensation from the government, under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), for unlawful use by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) of an aluminum-lithium alloy in the fuel tank of the Space Shuttle. It contends that the alloy and the processing of aging it are covered by claims in its U.S. Patent No. 4,840,682 (the “ ’682 patent”). At issue

OPINION AND ORDER GREGORY K. FRIZZELL, District Judge. This action was brought pursuant to the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., by Dwayne Lancaster, the personal representative of the estate of his deceased wife, Teresa Lancaster, on behalf of the United States and against her former employer, The Boeing Company (“Boeing”). Before the Court is Boeing’s Motion for Summary Judg

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, dissenting. Before placing its hand in the taxpayer’s pocket, the Government must place its finger on the law authorizing its action. United Dominion Industries, Inc. v. United States, 532 U. S. 822, 839 (2001) (Thomas, J., concurring) (citing Leavell v. Blades, 237 Mo. 695, 700-701, 141 S. W. 893, 894 (1911)). Despite the Govern

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument.