Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Gen. Circuit Breaker & Elec. Supply, Inc., 522 U.S. 857 (1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Gen. Circuit Breaker & Elec. Supply, Inc., 522 U.S. 857 (1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
40 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ingham Regional Medical Center v. United States (uscfc, 2016-03-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ingham Regional Medical Center v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2016 · confidence medium
Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 857 , 118 S.Ct. 156 , 139 L.Ed.2d 101 *23 (1997); Huntington Promotional & Supply, LLC v. United States, 114 Fed.Cl. 760, 767 (2014); Eden Isle Marina, Inc. v. United States, 113 Fed.Cl. 372, 492 (2013); Council for Tribal Emp’t Rights v. United States, 112 Fed.Cl. 231, 243 (2013), aff'd, 556 Fed.Appx. 965 (Fed.Cir.2014). “ ‘A well pleaded allegation of an express, or implied-in-fact, contract necessarily includes allegations going to each of the requisite elements of a contract.’ ” De Archibald v. United States, 57 Fed.Cl. 29, 32 (2003) (quoting McAfee …
discussed Cited "see" Sam Gray Enterprises, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Total Medical Management, Inc. v. United States, 104 F.3d 1314, 1319 (Fed.Cir.) (“Although the government argues that jurisdiction is lacking because there was no enforceable contract, the law is clear that, for the Court of Federal Claims to have jurisdiction, a valid contract must only be pleaded, not ultimately proven.”), ce rt. denied, — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 156 , 139 L.Ed.2d 101 (1997); Gould, Inc. v. United States, 67 F.3d 925, 929 (Fed.Cir. 1995).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." McDaniel v. Arnold
D. Maryland · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence low
New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 118-19 , 106 S.Ct. 960 , 89 L.Ed.2d 81 (1986) (holding that Fourth Amendment was not violated where, during an “undoubtedly justified traffic stop” an officer observed the vehicle’s vehicle identification number (VIN), which “is by law present in one of two locations—either inside the doorjamb, or atop the dashboard and thus ordinarily in plain view of someone outside the automobile”); see also United States v. Stanfield, 109 F.3d 976, 988 (4th Cir.) (“[TJhere is no legitimate expectation of privacy ‘shielding that portion of the interior of an …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
v.
General Circuit Breaker & Electric Supply, Inc.
No. 97-2.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 6, 1997.
522 U.S. 857
Published

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.