Case Citator › Honeywell, Inc. v. The United States v. Haz-Tad, Inc.

Honeywell, Inc. v. The United States v. Haz-Tad, Inc.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Good law
Court
Federal Circuit
Citation
870 F.2d 644
Decided
Confirmed treatments
0
Flagged citations read
52 of 52
Citing cases (total)
52
Good law
Every flagged citation to this case has been read, and none of them overrules, limits, or questions it. Honeywell, Inc. v. United States remains good law: all 52 flagged citations have been read, and none contains a confirmed adverse treatment of the Federal Circuit decision. Later bid protest opinions repeatedly applied its rule that a court should defer to a procurement decision with a reasonable basis.
More on how this was screened

References to abrogation generally concern Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe. One opinion says the earlier Claims Court ruling in Honeywell, which the Federal Circuit reversed, is no longer good law; it continues to apply the Federal Circuit's decision.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

52 later cases cite Honeywell, Inc. v. The United States v. Haz-Tad, Inc.; 52 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Honeywell, Inc. v. The United States v. Haz-Tad, Inc.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.

Every one of the 52 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Honeywell, Inc. v. The United States v. Haz-Tad, Inc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace