Astornet Technologies Inc. v. Bae Systems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a related provision of Rule 41 was “inapplicable by its plain terms” to cases filed by two different plaintiffs
• explaining that, while piercing the corporate veil is appropriate for questions of derivative liability, “veil-piercing standards do not govern the separate issue of direct liability for one’s own wrongful acts, as the governing law defines those wrongs”
• holding a “statute’s use of the definite article in providing ‘the owner’s remedy’ and its statement that the remedy is for payment of the owner’s ‘entire compensation’ . . . makes the remedy against the United States exclusive” (second emphasis added)
• describing two cases filed on the same day as “simultaneous” for purposes of section 1500
• “With no argument for transfer from Astornet, however, we do not consider transfer as an alternative to dismissal and so do not definitively address § 1631’s applicability.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).