Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. United States (1997)
green
· 372 citation events
across 14 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199720112026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
Yankee Atomic, 112 F.3d at 1575 (“the Act targets whichever utility eventually used and benefited from the DOE’s enrichment services”).
“the Act targets whichever utility eventually used and benefited from the DOE’s enrichment services”
green
Psi Energy, Inc. v. United States (2005)
Yankee Atomic, 112 F.3d at 1575 ("the Act targets whichever utility eventually used and benefitted from the DOE's enrichment services").
"the Act targets whichever utility eventually used and benefitted from the DOE's enrichment services"
green
CONNER BROS. CONST. CO., INC. v. Geren (2008)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1574-77 (Fed.Cir.1997).
green
Garco Construction, Inc. v. Secretary of the Army (2017)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1573, 1575 (Fed.
stating that the parties’ “characterization [of the governmental act] frames the dispositive issue” and then evaluating whether the Government was “acting for the purpose of’ increasing prices charged to plaintiffs or solving problems related to uranium enrichment
green
Klamath Irrigation District v. United States (2011)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1574 (Fed.Cir.1997) (quoting Horowitz v. United States, 267 U.S. 458, 461 , 45 S.Ct. 344 , 69 L.Ed. 736 (1925)).
green
Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States (2008)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1574 (Fed.Cir.1997) (quoting Horowitz v. United States, 267 U.S. 458, 461 , 45 S.Ct. 344 , 69 L.Ed. 736 (1925)).
green
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys (2003)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1578-79 (Fed.Cir.1997); Joan E.
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1576 (Fed.
green
Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States (2013)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1574 (Fed.Cir.1997) (quoting Horowitz v. United States, 267 U.S. 458, 461 , 45 S.Ct. 344 , 69 L.Ed. 736 (1925)).
green
Casitas Municipal Water Dist v. Us (2013)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1574 (Fed.
quoting Horowitz v. United States, 267 U.S. 458, 461 (1925
green
Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States (2008)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1574 (Fed.
quoting Horowitz v. United States, 267 U.S. 458, 461 (1925)
green
Centex Corp. v. United States (2005)
Id. at 1579 (“[Application of the unmistakability doctrine turns on whether enactment of the contractual obligation would effectively block the exercise of a sovereign power.
“[Application of the unmistakability doctrine turns on whether enactment of the contractual obligation would effectively block the exercise of a sovereign power. As explained above, the enactment at issue in this case is a general, sovereign act.”
green
PSI Energy, Inc. v. United States (2004)
Yankee Atomic Electric Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1997).
green
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. United States (2000)
See Yankee Atomic, 112 F.3d at 1576 (“Congress’s main purpose was to spread the costs of a problem that it realized only after the contracts had been performed.”).
“Congress’s main purpose was to spread the costs of a problem that it realized only after the contracts had been performed.”
green
Klamath Irrigation District v. United States (2007)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 951 , 118 S.Ct. 2365 , 141 L.Ed.2d 735 (1998) and Horowitz v. United States, 267 U.S. 458, 461 , 45 S.Ct. 344 , 69 L.Ed. 736 (1925)).
green
Statesman II Apartments, Inc. v. United States (2005)
Importantly, then, “[a] prerequisite for invoking the unmistakability doctrine is that a sovereign act must be implicated.” Id. at 1307 (emphasis added); accord Yankee Atomic, 112 F.3d at 1579 (“[Application of the unmistakability doctrine turns on whether enforcement of the contractual obligation would effectively block the exercise of a sovereign power.”) (emphasis added).
“[Application of the unmistakability doctrine turns on whether enforcement of the contractual obligation would effectively block the exercise of a sovereign power.”
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1574 (Fed.Cir.1997) (quoting Horowitz v. United States, 267 U.S. 458, 461 , 45 S.Ct. 344 , 69 L.Ed. 736 (1925))[, reh’g denied, in banc suggestion declined (Fed.Cir.1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 951 , 118 S.Ct. 2365 , 141 L.Ed.2d 735 (1998) ].
See id. at 1575 (“Thus, it is not a hard and fast rule, but rather a case-specific inquiry that focuses on the scope of the legislation in an effort to determine whether, on balance, that legislation was designed to target prior governmental actions.”).
“Thus, it is not a hard and fast rule, but rather a case-specific inquiry that focuses on the scope of the legislation in an effort to determine whether, on balance, that legislation was designed to target prior governmental actions.”
green
Timber Products Co. v. United States (2011)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1574 (Fed.Cir.1997). 13 The sovereign acts doctrine attempts to “balance[] the Government’s need for freedom to legislate with its obligation to honor its contracts by asking whether the sovereign act is properly attributable to the Government as contractor.” United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 889 , 896, 116 S.Ct. 2432 , 135 L.Ed.2d 964 (1996).
green
Stockton East Water District v. United States (2007)
As the plurality opinion in Winstar noted, ‘the application of the [unmistakability] doctrine ... turns on whether enforcement of the contractual obligation would block the exercise of a sovereign power of the Government.’ ”); Yankee Atomic, 112 F.3d at 1578-79 (“Based on the reasoning contained in the Winstar opinions, we conclude that the unmistakability doctrine applies in the present case.”).
“Based on the reasoning contained in the Winstar opinions, we conclude that the unmistakability doctrine applies in the present case.”
green
Stockton East Water District v. United States (2006)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1574 (Fed.Cir. 1997).
green
Allegre Villa, Ltd. Partnership v. United States (2004)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1997).
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1578 (Fed.Cir.1997), cer t. denied, 524 U.S. 951 , 118 S.Ct. 2365 , 141 L.Ed.2d 735 (1998).
green
Al Ghanim Combined Group W.L.L. (2026)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1574 (Fed.
green
Chugach Federal Solutions, Inc (2024)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1574 (quoting Horowitz v. United States, 267 U.S. 458, 461 (1925)); see also Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 635 F.3d 505, 520 (Fed.
green
GEMS Environmental Management Services (2024)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1574 (Fed.
quoting Horowitz v. United States, 267 U.S. 458, 461 (1925)
green
Jennette v. United States (2022)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1577 (Fed.
green
JE Dunn Construction Co. (2022)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1574 (Fed.
green
Davis v. United States (2019)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1577 (Fed.
green
Kane County, Utah v. United States (2016)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1577 (Fed.Cir.1997) (stating, “because the legislature has absolute authority and acknowledges no superior power, it cannot be bound by acts of a prior legislature.”).
green
Griffith v. United States (2015)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1577 (Fed.
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1579 (Fed.Cir.1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 951 , 118 S.Ct. 2365 , 141 L.Ed.2d 735 (1998).
green
P & K Contracting, Inc. v. United States (2012)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1579 (Fed.Cir.1997); ITT Arctic Servs., Inc. v. United States, 524 F.2d 680, 691 (Ct.Cl.1975) (“[T]he contractor in a fixed-price contract assumes the risk of unexpected costs.
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1997).
green
In Re Ual Corp. (2008)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1997). *803 A second limitation on governmental contract enforcement is the "unmistakability" doctrine, a canon of construction disfavoring implied governmental obligations in public contracts.
green
Bannum, Inc. v. United States (2008)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1997)).
green
McNeil v. United States (2007)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1577 (Fed.Cir.1997) (“[Tjhe Contracts Clause does not apply to acts of the United States.”), and the Contract Clause does not mandate the payment of money, see Eastpoit S.S.
green
Stockton East Water District v. United States (2007)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1574 (Fed.Cir.1997).
green
Yankee Atomic Electric Co. v. United States (2006)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1572, n. 1 (Fed.Cir.1997) (recognizing secondary market that developed for government uranium enrichment services); Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC v. United States, 64 Fed.Cl. 515, 519 (2005) (describing “SNF put-option trading” which “permitted the market to influence the order of SNF disposal, which presumably would benefit those facilities with less storage space”); Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. v. United States, 64 Fed.Cl. 336, …
green
Fry v. United States (2006)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1577 (Fed.Cir.1997) (holding that the Contracts Clause, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 to the United States Constitution, does not apply to the actions of the federal government); see also San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522 , 542 n. 21, 107 S.Ct. 2971 , 97 L.Ed.2d 427 (1987) (holding the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to the actions of the federal government).
green
Atwood-Leisman v. United States (2006)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1578 (Fed.Cir. 1997)).
green
Fifth Third Bank v. United States (2006)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1579 (Fed.Cir.1997)). 33 The court therefore ruled as a matter of law during the pretrial conference that an award of conversion proceedings would be taxable as income.
green
Amber Resources Co. v. United States (2005)
Id.; cf. Yankee Atomic, 112 F.3d at 1789 (holding that the damages sought for the alleged breach, the imposition of a new tax assessment, would effectively bar the sovereign power to tax).
holding that the damages sought for the alleged breach, the imposition of a new tax assessment, would effectively bar the sovereign power to tax
green
Night Vision Corp. v. United States (2005)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1997) (“The Government-as-contractor cannot exercise the power of its twin, the Government-as-sovereign, for the purpose of altering, modifying, obstructing or violating the particular contracts into which it had entered with private parties.”).
green
Klamath Irrigation District v. United States (2005)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1579-80 (Fed.Cir.1997); see also B & B Trucking, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 406 F.3d 766 , 769 (6th Cir. 2005) (no taking of a contract right where that right did not exist); McNabb v. United States, 54 Fed.Cl. 759, 779 (2002) (same). .
no taking of a contract right where that right did not exist
green
Boston Edison Co. v. States (2005)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1997) (“The Government-as-contractor cannot exercise the power of its twin, the Govemment-as-sovereign, for the purpose of altering, modifying, obstructing or violating the particular contracts into which it had entered with private parties.”); see also Temple-Inland, Inc. v. United States, 59 Fed.Cl. 550, 560-61 (2004).
green
Kentucky v. United States (2004)
Dynamics Land Sys., Inc., 540 U.S. 581 , 124 S.Ct. 1236 (construing Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in light of congressional purpose in preventing “old age” discrimination in employment); Yankee Atomic Electric Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1572 (Fed.Cir.1997) (construing Energy Policy Act of 1992 in light of purpose of statute and end to be achieved).
green
Temple-Inland, Inc. v. United States (2004)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1997); Am.
green
Carabetta Enterprises, Inc. v. United States (2003)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1997). “[An] inquiry into possible ‘targeting’ by Congress is relevant to determining whether the alleged breach is merely an incidental effect of a sovereign act designed to promote the public good, or instead is a deliberate attempt by Congress to alter its previous bargain with the contractor.” Coast-to-Coast Fin.
green
National Australia Bank v. United States (2003)
Co. v. United States, 112 F.3d 1569, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1997).