Mikes v. Burnett

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the Secretary’s authority under the MPCECA is discretionary because he “may,” but need not, settle claims
• noting that the MPCECA provides that settlement of a claim by the military is “final and conclusive”
• stating that the Federal Circuit “has not established criteria to consider in evaluating a motion for discovery under RCFC 56( [d])” (citing Theisen Vending Co. v. United States, 58 Fed.Cl. 194, 198 (2003))
• “RCFC 56 is patterned on Rule 56 of the [FRCP] and is similar in language and effect.”
• “[N]o information obtained through discovery would raise a dispute over material facts necessary to rebut defendant’s assertion that plaintiff lacks standing.”
• “RCFC 56 is patterned on Rule 56 of the [FRCP] and is similar in language and effect.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).