Sandoval Lua 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.

• “Appellants must show ‘affirmative misconduct [as] a prerequisite for invoking equitable estoppel against the [G]overnment’” (quoting Zacharin v. United States, 213 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2000))
• “Prior to the adoption of the statutory definition of ‘deposit’ in 2004, courts used a test of ‘circumstances’ to determine whether remittances were deposits or payments.” (footnote omitted
• “Prior to the adoption of the statutory definition of ‘deposit’ in 2004, courts used a test of ‘circumstances’ to determine whether remittances were deposits or payments.” (footnote omitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• McManus v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2017-03-03· cited 1×
• Actavis Laboratories Fl, Inc. v. United States
  Federal Circuit· 2025-03-21· cited 1×
• Baha v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2019-08-28
• Peretz v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2020-12-04
• City of Wilmington, Delaware v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2022-01-26

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• New York Life Insurance Company v. United States
  Federal Circuit· 1997-09-26· cited 112×
• Perez v. United States
  Fifth Circuit· 2002-11-27· cited 104×
• Alexey T. Zacharin v. United States
  Federal Circuit· 2000-06-13· cited 85×
• Computervision Corp. v. United States
  Federal Circuit· 2006-04-20· cited 81×
• Cencast Services, L.P. v. United States
  Federal Circuit· 2013-09-10· cited 63×
• Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States
  Federal Circuit· 2000-04-26· cited 63×
• AmerGen Energy Co. Ex Rel. Exelon Generation Co. v. United States
  Federal Circuit· 2015-03-11· cited 8×
• Sandoval Lua v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2015-09-25· cited 6×