green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
6.0 score
“the government cannot make a binding contract that it -will not exercise a sovereign power, but it can agree in a contract that if it does so, it will pay the other contracting party the amount by which its costs are increased by the sovereign act.”
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Winstar Corporation v. United States
the government cannot make a binding contract that it will not exercise a sovereign power, but it can agree in a contract that if it does so, it will pay the other contracting party the amount by which its costs are increased by the sovereign act.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Winstar Corp. v. United States
the government cannot make a binding contract that it -will not exercise a sovereign power, but it can agree in a contract that if it does so, it will pay the other contracting party the amount by which its costs are increased by the sovereign act.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Winstar Corp. v. United States
the government cannot make a binding contract that it will not exercise a sovereign power, but it can agree in a contract that if it does so, it will pay the other contracting party the amount by which its costs are increased by the sovereign act.
cited
Cited "see"
Everett Plywood Corp. v. United States
See Amino Brothers Co. v. United States, 178 Ct.Cl. 515 , 372 F.2d 485 , cert. denied, 389 U.S. 846 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Carpenters Union Local No. 25 v. National Labor Relations Board
See, e.g., NLRB v. Int’l Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, Local 12, 378 F.2d 125, 129 (9th Cir.) (section 8(b)(2) violated by “simple expedient” of not dispatching men), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 846 , 88 S.Ct. 104 , 19 L.Ed.2d 113 (1967); NLRB v. Int’l Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12, 237 F.2d 670, 674 (9th Cir.1956) (implicitly rejecting dissent’s argument that section 8(b)(2) requires that the employer have knowledge of union’s unlawful activity), ce rt. denied, 353 U.S. 910 , 77 S.Ct. 666 , 1 L.Ed.2d 664 (1957).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
ca9 1985
See, e.g., NLRB v. Int'l Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, Local 12, 378 F.2d 125, 129 (9th Cir.) (section 8(b)(2) violated by "simple expedient" of not dispatching men), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 846 , 88 S.Ct. 104 , 19 L.Ed.2d 113 (1967); NLRB v. Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12, 237 F.2d 670, 674 (9th Cir.1956) (implicitly rejecting dissent's argument that section 8(b)(2) requires that the employer have knowledge of union's unlawful activity), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 910 , 77 S.Ct. 666 , 1 L.Ed.2d 664 (1957).
Amino Brothers Co., Inc.
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 411.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 9, 1967.
John A. Bier smith for petitioner., Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
Published
Citer courts: Federal Circuit (3)
Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.