United States v. Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
KEEP, District Judge:
The United States of America brought this action for declaratory relief, seeking judicial interpretation of its contract with the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government ruling that 1) the contract was clear and unambiguous on its face and thus extrinsic evidence was inadmissible; 2) the interpretation urged by SMUD would restrict Congress’ plenary power to define the scope of the Central Valley Project and therefore would be illegal. SMUD appeals.
We find that the contract is not unambiguous on…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- John H. Freeman, Jr., D/B/A Freeman Electric Gin Company v. Continental Gin CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1967
- Walsh v. SchlechtSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Kansas City Power & Light Company v. Douglas McKay Secretary of the InteriorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1955
- City of Santa Clara v. AndrusCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1978
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Raymond Keith Foster, Keith Mfg. Co., and Keith Sales, Co. v. Hallco Manufacturing Co., Inc., and Olof A. HallstromCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- J.R. Maffei Richard Maffei Betty J. Maffei v. Northern Insurance Company of New York Maryland Casualty Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- United States v. Contra Costa County Water DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- Guillermo A. Saavedra, Individually and Doing Business as Saagan Moving & Storage Company v. Raymond Donovan, Secretary of LaborCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
- Perez-Encinas v. Amerus Life InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2006
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.