Boston Edison Co. 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.

• stating that the plaintiff “was forced to pay more in aggregate fees as a result of [NRC’s] rule change”
• finding that “[r]ecord testimony supports the trial court’s finding that the NRC’s wet storage costs increased as a result of the DOE’s breach of the Standard Contract.”
• explaining that although plaintiff Entergy Nuclear Generation Company originally filed a complaint seeking damages incurred between 1999 and 2005, it later amended the complaint to seek damages through 2008
• allowing recovery of “the portion of overhead costs (calculated using GAAP) that was attributable to mitigation projects”
• affirming the trial court’s ruling that the change in Part 171 fee structure was caused by DOE’s partial breach
• affirming the trial court’s ruling that the change in Part 171 fee structure was caused by DOE’s partial breach

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).