Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided June 13, 2012No. 2011-5033, 2011-5034, 2011-5042Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBryson, Circuit Judge

I join the court’s opinion on all issues but one: the majority’s conclusion that payments to the Vermont Clean Energy Development Fund and the requirement to put up a visual barrier at the power plant were unforeseeable and therefore cannot be included in the calculation of ENVY’s damages.

With respect to ENVY’s payments into the Clean Energy Development Fund, I would uphold the trial court’s finding that it was reasonably foreseeable at the time of contract formation that a nuclear operator would be faced with expenses of that type if the government’s breach forced the operator to build a dry…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. English v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. New York Marine & General Insurance v. Lafarge North America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2010
  4. Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Bluebonnet Savings Bank, F.S.B., Stone Capital, Inc. (Formerly Known as Cfsb Corporation), and James M. Fail v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001

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

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

Powered by the Exa API