Legal Opinion

Commonwealth Aluminum Corp. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided January 25, 1990No. 80-88CPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BRUGGINK, Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Pending before the court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment. It raises the question of whether res judicata bars plaintiffs from asserting that defendant’s imposition of a “customer charge” in accordance with applicable electric power rate schedules constitutes a breach of plaintiffs’ contracts for the purchase of electrical power. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted.

BACKGROUND1

The Bonneville Power Administration (“BPA”) is a self-financing agency within the United States Department of Energy that markets electrical power generated…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De GuineeSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Bowen v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  5. Stoll v. GottliebSupreme Court of the United States · 1938

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1991
  2. City of Burbank, California v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API