Legal Opinion
Kleemann v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided December 6, 1989No. Nos. 89-2032, 89-2047PublishedCited by 43 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:
To avoid liability for accidents involving military equipment, military contractors are required to show, inter alia, that their products conformed to reasonably precise specifications approved by the United States. Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 108 S.Ct. 2510, 101 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988). Here we must decide what conformity means. Plaintiffs allege that the landing gear of an F/A-18 *700aircraft, in which plaintiffs’ decedent was killed, did not conform to general performance requirements contained in defendant’s original contract with the Navy. We cannot,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Trevino v. General Dynamics Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
- Harduvel v. General Dynamics Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1989
- Tozer v. LTV Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1986
- Edwin Lees Shaw, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gary Scott Shaw, Deceased v. Grumman Aerospace CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1985
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Miller v. United Technologies Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Getz v. Boeing Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Oliver v. Oshkosh Truck Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
- Perez v. Lockheed Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1996
- Kendall Stout v. Borg-Warner CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.