Fuller v. Fellows

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the first prong was met when there was “no dispute that [the] plaintiff [was] an actual bidder”
• stating that “had the Army accepted plaintiffs late submissions, the Army would have given plaintiff an unfair competitive advantage by bestowing a benefit—additional time to submit a complete proposal—exclusively on plaintiff’
• reviewing plaintiff’s contention that the specific pricing information called for in the solicitation was not a binding requirement and finding it contrary to the plain language of the solicitation
• “While the decisions of the Comptroller General and the boards of contract appeals are not binding on the Court of Federal Claims, their analyses may be instructive.”
• “In most preaward bid protests decided after Weeks Marine, Inc. where standing was at issue, the court has analyzed a protester’s direct economic interest under the Weeks Marine, Inc. test.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).