Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States

773 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States

5 Citing cases

  1. Ford Motor Co. v. United States

    811 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 11 times
    Comparing the effectiveness of review in the same court under two federal statutes

    See, e.g., Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr., ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 817, 184 L.Ed.2d 627 (2013); Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011); Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154, 130 S.Ct. 1237, 176 L.Ed.2d 18 (2010); Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006).Recently in Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 773 F.3d 1315, 1320–22 (Fed.Cir.2014), we followed those cases and held that the six-year limitations set forth in 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(4)(A) governing the Contract Disputes Act was not jurisdictional. We explained that the statute, which provides that “[e]ach claim by a contractor against the Federal Government relating to a contract ... shall be submitted within 6 years after the accrual of the claim,” did “not speak in jurisdictional terms,” nor did its context “suggest that it is jurisdictional.”

  2. Guardian Angels Med. Serv. Dogs, Inc. v. United States

    809 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the appeals period did not begin to run from the date of a Notice of Termination for Default where the plaintiff requested reconsideration and the CO "directed [the plaintiff] to provide documentation supporting its claim at its ‘earliest convenience’ and stated that she would then ‘proceed with a review of the material and provide a response as required by the [FAR]’ "

    While we review the legal conclusions of the Court of Federal Claims de novo, we review its factual findings for clear error. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 773 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed.Cir.2014); Raytheon Co. v. United States, 747 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed.Cir.2014).II. Discussion

  3. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. Murphy

    823 F.3d 622 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 3 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Kellogg Brown, the Army repeatedly told contractor KBR that it had to resolve its disputed costs with its subcontractor before KBR could present a claim for reimbursement of those costs.

    The court has confirmed that the limitations period of the Contract Disputes Act is not jurisdictional. See Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 773 F.3d 1315 (Fed.Cir.2014). However, in view of our decision that the statute of limitations does not bar this claim, equitable tolling need not be considered.

  4. Brisbin v. United States

    629 F. App'x 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 1 times
    Applying Ninth Circuit precedent to determine if the District Court for the Eastern District of California was correct in dismissing a case rather than transferring it to the Court of Federal Claims under § 1631

    A claim accrues as of "the date when all events, that fix the alleged liability of either the Government or the contractor and permit assertion of the claim, were known or should have been known." Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 773 F.3d 1315, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting 48 C.F.R. § 33.201). Plaintiff's claims were timely submitted to the CO after accrual per 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(4)(A).

  5. Pond Security Service, GmbH v. United States

    No. 17-1736C (Fed. Cl. May. 28, 2021)

    Thus, according to defendant, when Pond learned of the memorandum, it knew of the events that "fix the alleged liability of . . . the Government . . . and permit assertion of the claim," and it had knowledge that "some injury [has] occurred." Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., 773 F.3d 1315, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In its opposition, Pond argues that the government failed to assert this affirmative defense in its answer, and thus, the government's defense is untimely.