U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2014

Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Decided March 28, 2014 · Rader, Newman, Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Moore, O'Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Taranto, Chen

563 F. App'x 769

Counsel

John P. Elwood, Tirzah S. Lollar, Esq., Craig Margolis, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Jonathan Reid Prouty, Senior Trial Counsel, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Cross Appellant.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Oasis International Waters, Inc. v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2017)
Oasis International Waters, Inc. v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2016)
Horn & Associates, Inc. v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2015)
Mlb Transportation, Inc. v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2025)
United States v. Management Consulting, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2022)
United States‚ v. Rupari Food Services‚ Inc. (United States Court of International Trade 2018)
Oasis International Waters, Inc. v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2017)
Continental Service Group, Inc. v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2017)
Kant v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2015)
United States v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Texas 2015)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. filed a petition for rehearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by the defendant-cross-appellant. Plaintiff-appellant moved for leave to file a reply in support of its petition. The petition was referred to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc, the response, and the motion for leave to file a reply were referred to the circuit judges who are in regular active service.

Defendant-cross-appellant United States also filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by the plaintiff-appellant. The petition was referred to the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc and response were referred to the circuit judges who are in regular active service.

Upon consideration thereof, It Is Ordered That:

(1) The petition for panel rehearing filed by plaintiff-appellant Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. is denied.

(2) The petition for rehearing en banc filed by plaintiff-appellant Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. is denied.

(3) The petition for panel rehearing filed by defendant-cross-appellant United States is granted-in-part for the limited purpose of deleting the words “at the Court of Federal Claims” from page 1366 of the opinion, reported at 728 F.3d 1348. An errata sheet is attached. The panel denies the petition for panel rehearing in all other respects.

(4) The petition for rehearing en banc filed by defendant-cross-appellant United States is denied.

(5) The motion of plaintiff-appellant to withdraw counsel Eric A. White is granted.

(6) The motion of plaintiff-appellant for leave to file a reply in support of its petition for rehearing en banc is denied.

*770 (7) The mandate of the court will issue on April 4, 2014.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.