Legal Opinion
Detroit Edison Co. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided April 24, 2003No. 02-926CPublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
MILLER, Judge.
Defendant has moved, pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(6), to dismiss plaintiffs takings claim for failure to state an actionable basis for relief due to the dual remedy sought under both a contract and a takings theory. An owner of commercial nuclear power plants contends that the Department of Energy’s delayed disposal of the owner’s nuclear byproduct has forced it to house the nuclear material indefinitely, thereby depriving the owner of the full market value of the storage space. Defendant argues that plaintiffs remedy lies exclusively in contract. Argument is deemed unnecessary.
FA…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Armstrong v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- United States v. Winstar Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Palazzolo v. Rhode IslandSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Complaint v. Scimed Life Systems, Inc., and Robert L. Hess, Cross-Complainant/appellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Sun Oil Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1978
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Abney v. AlameidaDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2004
- Franconia Associates v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2004
- Boston Medical Center Corp. v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Health & Human ServicesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2012
- Commonwealth Edison Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2003
- Boston Edison Co. v. StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.