Case, Incorporated v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the claims in that dispute were not the same because they were “separate and distinct”
• holding jurisdiction was appropriate based upon fact that two cases arose from same set of facts and circumstances “[did] not alter fact that the two cases involved different claims”
• explaining that Sharman applied when two claims “involved precisely ‘the same money ”
• noting that unless the contractor has received a final decision from the contracting officer, jurisdiction does not attach for a CDA claim until “at least 60 days have passed since the date the claim was submitted for a decision”
• noting that the claim in the pending litigation identified $2.8 million as monetary relief, whereas the claim later presented to the contracting officer sought recovery “over and above” the amount sought in the pending litigation of an additional $1.8 million
• distinguishing critical fact in Sharman that contractor’s initial claim and government’s subsequent conduct were “mirror images” of same claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).