United States Court of Appeals

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CASES Case: 09-2280 Document: 39 Date Filed: 07/01/2010 Page: 6 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iv Page(s) American Sys. Consulting, Inc., B 294644, 2004 CPD 247 (Dec. 13, 2004).................................................26 Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978).......................................................................................57 Fiberglass Insulators, Inc. v. Dupuy, 856 F.2d 652 (4 th Cir. 1988) ..........................................................................22 Friendship Heights Assocs. v. Vlastimil Koubek, A.I.A., 785 F.2d 1154 (4 th Cir. 1986) ............................................................40, 41, 42 Garrett v. Desa Industries, Inc., 705 F.2d 721 (4 th Cir. 1983) .................................................................. passim Hensley v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., 277 F.3d 535 (4 th Cir. 2002) ..........................................................................22 Houston v. Norton, 215 F.3d 1172 (10 th Cir. 2000) ......................................................................57 Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996).........................................................................................19 Kopf v. Skyrm, 993 F.2d 374 (4 th Cir. 1993) ..........................................................................40 McDonnell v. Miller Oil Co., 134 F.3d 638 (4 th Cir. 1988) ..........................................................................19 Melton v. Pasqua, 339 F.3d 222 (4 th Cir. 2003) ..........................................................................18
Case: 09-2280 Document: 39 Date Filed: 07/01/2010 Page: 7 Moore v. Beaufort County, 936 F.2d 159 (4 th Cir. 1991) ..........................................................................22 Perot Systems Government Services, Inc., B-402138, 2010 CPD 64, 2010 WL 884032 (Jan. 21, 2010) ...............26, 28 Persinger v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 920 F.2d 1185 (4 th Cir. 1990) ........................................................................45 Pfingston v. Ronan Eng’g Co., 284 F.3d 999 (9 th Cir. 2002) .................................................................... 57-58 Rafizadeh v. Continental Common, Inc., 553 F.2d 869 (5 th Cir. 2008) ..........................................................................58 Rowland v. Am. Gen. Fin., Inc., 340 F.3d 187 (4 th Cir. 2003) ..........................................................................19 Sanford’s Domestic/International Trade, B-230580, B-230580-2 88-2 CPD 214 (Sept. 6, 1998)..............................64 Science Applications International, B-401773, 2009 CPD 229 (Nov. 10, 2009).......................................... 26-27 Scott v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 789 F.2d 1052 (4 th Cir. 1986) .................................................................. 45-46 Tarheel Specialties, Inc., B-298197; B-298197.2, 2006 CPD 140 (July 17, 2006)................26, 29, 30 United States v. Basham, 561 F.3d 302 (4 th Cir 2009) .....................................................................19, 72 United States v. Cheek, 94 F.3d 136 (4 th Cir. 1996) ............................................................................18 United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304 (4 th Cir. 2005) ..........................................................................18 v
Page 1 and 2: Case: 09-2280 Document: 39 Date Fil
Page 5: Case: 09-2280 Document: 39 Date Fil
Page 9 and 10: United States ex rel. J. Cooper & A
Page 15 and 16: with leave to amend (Dkt. 30), and
Page 17 and 18: The case proceeded to trial on Octo
Page 19 and 20: complete commercial sales history f
Page 21 and 22: discounts for a 60-hour work week w
Page 27 and 28: “hyper-technical” construction
Page 29 and 30: After trial, the trial court abused
Page 33 and 34: The court has the inherent authorit
Page 43 and 44: Moreover, in failing to meet its bu
Page 47 and 48: the right job,” (J.A. 1084); and
Page 51 and 52: This Court has held that “the use
Page 53 and 54: Id. at 725. Case: 09-2280 Document:
Page 57 and 58:
Case: 09-2280 Document: 39 Date Fil
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
-- The district court denied a seco
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
(discussing trial exhibit 114) (J.A
Page 75 and 76:
commercial public - leaving open th
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
even part of this case until the be
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
October 27, 2009 in defending this
Page 85:
CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I
show all

United States Court of Appeals

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?