Legal Opinion
Republic of the Philippines v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided February 4, 1992No. Civ. 88-5150PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DEBEVOISE, District Judge.
The Republic of the Philippines (the “Republic”) and the National Power Corporation (“NPC”) instituted this action against Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Westinghouse International Projects Com pany (collectively, “Westinghouse”) and Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc. (“Burns & Roe”), asserting multiple tort and contract claims. The case arises out of the construction of the 600-megawatt Philippine Nuclear Power Plant (“PNPP”) in Bagac, Bataan during a ten year period commencing in 1976.
I concluded that with the exception of Count 3 and part of Count 8 all…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical ExaminersSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Gregory v. ChehiCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
- Kauffman v. MossCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Gruntal & Co., Inc. v. SteinbergDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1994
- Republic of the Philippines v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1993
- Westinghouse Elec. Corp. by Levit v. FranklinDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1992
- Gannon v. American Home ProductsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2010