BARROWS ET AL.

v.

IDAHO ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Cleo D. Mathis & Vico Prods. Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Spears, 857 F.2d 749 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
  …7, 522, 222 Ct.Cl. 1 (1979). Mathis has had his day in court, a day undeserved, on the issues previously decided. Our earlier affirmance remains the law of the case. See, e.g., Gindes v. United States, 740 F. 2d 947, 949-50 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1074, 105 S.Ct. 569, 83 L.Ed.2d 509 (1984); Turtle Mountain, 612 F. 2d at 520-21. III. Quantum of the Award A. Introduction Confusing (or obfuscating) the purpose of Section 285, Mathis attacks the award as though it is made to Hydro’s attorneys. The…
• In re Roberts, 846 F.2d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
  …l, the rule adopted is to be applied, right or wrong, absent exceptional circumstances, in the disposition of the lawsuit’ ”) (quoting United States v. Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, 612 F. 2d 517, 520, 222 Ct.Cl. 1 (1979)), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1074, 105 S.Ct. 569, 83 L.Ed.2d 509 (1984). In this case, however, the “exceptional circumstances” are present, as one of the classical exceptions to the doctrine of the law of the case. Thus the circuit court, including this court as successor to the Se…