Legal Opinion

Wahlcometroflex, Inc. v. Westar Energy, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided December 2, 2014No. 13-3268PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KELLY, Circuit Judge.

This case involves a dispute over the meaning and application of a liquidated damages provision under Kansas law. The district court held that Defendant Westar Energy, Inc. (Westar) did not need to establish that Plaintiff Wahlcometroflex Inc.’s (Wahlco) late delivery of equipment actually delayed Westar’s production schedule in order to recover contractual liquidated damages. Wahlcometroflex, Inc. v. Westar Energy, Inc., No. 11-4017-EFM, 2013 WL 5774846 (D.Kan. Oct. 25, 2013). We have jurisdiction over Wahlco’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Background

Westar…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Lifewise Master Funding v. TelebankCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2004
  2. Carrothers Construction Co. v. City of South HutchinsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 2009
  3. Mumby v. PURE ENERGY SERVICES (USA), INC.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2011
  4. Kvassay v. MurrayCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1991
  5. Hutton Contracting Co. v. City of CoffeyvilleCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2007

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Avant v. DokeDistrict Court, E.D. Oklahoma · 2023
  2. Liberty Insurance Corporation v. OK Industries, Inc.District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · 2022
  3. Mera v. BarrDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2024

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API