Legal Opinion

Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided June 2, 2005No. Nos. 01-46C, 01-251C, 01-416CPublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ALLEGRA, Judge.

“If a contract is broken, the measure of damages generally is the same, whatever the cause of the breach. ”1

This is the second leg of a jurisprudential voyage having its genesis in a series of contracts entered into between the plaintiff, Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority (CMHA or plaintiff), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide low-income housing under the United States Housing Act of 1937 (the Housing Act). This court previously held that plaintiffs rights under these contracts were repu*537diated by Congress in 1994, when it amended…

2Cases cited125 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  4. Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  5. Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-FonsecaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. North Star Alaska Housing Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
  2. One & Ken Valley Housing Group v. Maine State Housing AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2013
  3. Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
  4. Klamath Irrigation District v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
  5. Yankee Atomic Electric Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006

29 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