Legal Opinion
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided February 5, 1997No. 91-1204CPublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
HODGES, Judge.
Plaintiffs McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics entered into a full-scale engineering and development contract with the Navy in 1988 to develop the A-12 aircraft. The Navy terminated the contract for default in 1991. We converted the termination for default to a termination for the convenience of the Government. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States, 35 Fed.Cl. 358 (1996).
The parties asked that we interpret the incremental funding clause of the contract and its effect on plaintiffs’ recovery of incurred costs. The purpose of this Opinion is to explain the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Office of Personnel Management v. RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- American Electronic Laboratories, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- General Electric Company, a Corporation v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1969
- Solar Turbines, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1991
- Texas Instruments Incorporated v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- United States ex rel. Stone v. Rockwell International Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2002
- Crassociates, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
- Noonan v. Wonderland Greyhound Park Realty LLCDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2010
- Baron Financial Corp. v. NatanzonDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2007
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1998
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.