3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 11 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Piszel v. United States.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Piszel v. United States Anchor | green | “when the government itself breaches a contract, a party must seek compensation from the government in contract rather than under a takings claim.” | 5 |
| 2 | City Line Joint Venture v. United States | green | “when a viable contract claim exists, we should not reach out to decide the takings issue. clearly, there should not be double recovery, we should not commingle takings compensation and contract damages.” | 3 |
| 3 | Piszel v. United States | green | “we have held that when the government itself breaches a contract, a party must seek compensation from the government in contract rather than under a takings claim.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.