Santa Fe Pacific Railroad v. United States

12 Citing cases

  1. Love Terminal Partners v. U.S.

    No. 08-536 L (Fed. Cl. Feb. 11, 2011)   Cited 5 times
    Finding that Congress effected a taking when it mandated the demolition of gates at the claimant's airport terminal

    Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to RCFC 56. Issues of statutory interpretation and other matters of law may be adjudicated on a motion for summary judgment. Santa Fe Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. RCFC 56(c);Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Sharp v. United States, 580 F.3d 1234, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

  2. Decatur Liquors, Inc. v. District of Columbia

    384 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.D.C. 2005)   Cited 1 times
    Holding that abstention is unnecessary in a suit brought by liquor licensees claiming that amendment to liquor code was not passed in accordance with procedural requirements of Home Rule Act

    Sparks v. Catholic Univ. of Am., 510 F.2d 1277, 1281 (D.C. Cir. 1975). See Santa Fe Pac. R. Co. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("Issues of statutory interpretation and other matters of law may be decided on motion for summary judgment."). "When the unresolved issues are primarily legal rather than factual, summary judgment is particularly appropriate."

  3. Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. U.S.

    316 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2004)   Cited 2 times
    Observing that, while "it is clear that the Domestic Producers have been deprived of certain procedural rights accorded them by the statute," it is "entirely unclear . . . whether those deprivations can be effectively remedied"

    As long as the new interpretation is consistent with congressional intent, an agency may make a `course correction.'" Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 7 CIT 178, 192-93, 585 F.Supp. 649, 661 (1984) (citations omitted); cf., Santa Fe Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that an agency may change its position if it believes that the previous position was based on a mistaken legal interpretation). As a general principle, of course, an agency is required to provide an adequate explanation for departing from prior practice.

  4. General Electric Company v. U.S.

    No. 99-172C (Fed. Cl. Apr. 29, 2010)   Cited 1 times

    Where, as here, all of the parties' factual assertions are taken as true, summary judgment on the legal issue is appropriate. See, e.g.,Santa Fe Pac. R. Co. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("Issues of statutory interpretation and other matters of law may be decided on motion for summary judgment."); Costain Coal, Inc. v. United States, 126 F.3d 1437, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In evaluating the meaning of the original CAS 413.50(c)(12), the Federal Circuit has held that the court must be guided by the CASB's intent in promulgating the standard.

  5. Manor Care, Inc. v. U.S.

    Case No. 07-776 T (Fed. Cl. Oct. 27, 2009)   Cited 3 times

    Cases such as the one presented here, which involve competing interpretations of a statute, are particularly well-suited for adjudication by summary judgment. Santa Fe Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see Richmond American Homes of Colorado, Inc., et al. v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 376, 386 (2007). B. Certification Requirement

  6. General Electric Company v. U.S.

    No. 99-172C (Fed. Cl. Sep. 29, 2008)

    Where, as here, all of the parties' factual assertions are taken as true, summary judgment on the legal issue is appropriate. See, e.g., Santa Fe Pac. R. Co. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("Issues of statutory interpretation and other matters of law may be decided on motion for summary judgment.");Costain Coal, Inc. v. United States, 126 F.3d 1437, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

  7. Fathauer v. U.S.

    Case No. 07-279C (Fed. Cl. Jul. 7, 2008)   Cited 1 times

    Therefore, the only question for this Court to consider is whether the Sunday premium pay differential set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 5546(a) should be available to part-time as well as to full-time Federal employees. This is a question of law that may properly be decided on a motion for summary judgment. See Santa Fe Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Curry v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 593, 597 (2005). II. History of the Sunday Premium Pay Regulation

  8. Curry v. U.S.

    No. 02-101C (Fed. Cl. Jul. 8, 2005)

    The issues of liability in this case turn solely on questions of the interpretation of statutes (and regulations), which are questions of law that may be decided on a motion for summary judgment. Santa Fe Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002). B. Hybrids

  9. Fluor Hanford, Inc. v. the United States

    Nos. 02-759C, 03-1287C (Fed. Cl. Jul. 1, 2005)   Cited 3 times

    Issues of statutory interpretation are matters of law that may be decided on motions for summary judgment. Santa Fe Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The contracting officer's justification for withholding full reimbursement of plaintiff's costs of defense is a FAR provision that was issued pursuant to the Major Fraud Act of 1988, 10 U.S.C. § 2324, 41 U.S.C. § 256; 48 C.F.R. § 31.205-47(b).

  10. Arctic King Fisheries, Inc. v. U.S.

    No. 99-49C (Fed. Cl. Feb. 11, 2004)   Cited 5 times

    Under the first prong of this test, the court must evaluate whether the claimant has a "property interest" that was affected by the government action. Maritrans, 342 F.3d at 1351; Santa Fe Pacific R.R. Co. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Store Safe Redlands Assocs. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 726, 734 (1996). Frequently, this requires the court to sort among various, sometimes overlapping, claimed interests, some of which may be in the nature of property compensable under the Fifth Amendment and others of which not.