Legal Opinion
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided March 30, 1998No. 91-1204CPublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
HODGES, Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics entered into a full-scale engineering and development (FSED) contract with the Navy in 1988 to develop the A-12, a Stealth aircraft. The Navy terminated the contract for default in 1991. We ruled that the termination for default was improper and converted it into a termination for the convenience of the Government. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States, 35 Fed.Cl. 358 (1996). The purpose of this opinion is to set forth our reasons for awarding plaintiffs most of the costs that they incurred in…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Sterling Millwrights, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1992
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1996
- Nolan Brothers, Inc. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1971
- Bath Iron Works Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1995
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Fireman's Fund InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1999
- McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Plaintiff-Cross and General Dynamics Corporation, Plaintiff-Cross v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
- Kellogg Brown & Root Services Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- Thermalon Industries, Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2002
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.