Alabama Power Company v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient evidence to support a finding that the government’s breach was a substantial causal factor in the NRC’s decision to increase fees”
• holding that “plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient evidence to support a finding that the government’s breach was a substantial causal factor in the NRC’s decision to increase fees”
• holding that “plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient evidence to support a finding that the government’s breach was a substantial causal factor in the NRC’s decision to increase fees”
• holding that because plaintiffs failed to prove that their incurred fuel characterization and loading costs would not have been incurred in the non-breach world, plaintiffs were not entitled to recovery for these costs
• “The term ‘suitable for use,’ read along with the government’s obligation to provide equipment ‘needed to use’ the casks, implies that the casks chosen would not require major building renovations.”
• second round of litigation related to the breach of plaintiffs’ Standard Contracts

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).