Ingersoll-Rand 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 the plaintiff’s claim that the government’s termination of a contract “for convenience” violated two regulations did not change the action’s fundamentally contractual character
• holding that “a request for specific performance must be resolved by” the Court of Federal Claims
• stating that it is a “well-accepted proposition that a plaintiff may not avoid [contract remedies] merely by alleging violations of regulatory or statutory provisions rather than breach of contract”
• observing that 6 Here, both personal jurisdiction and venue would be proper in the District of Maryland. 8 See Williams v. GEICO Corp., 792 F. Supp. 2d 58, 62–63 (D.D.C. 2011
• explaining that “where [the] practical result of granting [a] plaintiff’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief would be reinstatement of terminated contracts,” that relief amounts to “specific performance” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)
• holding an arbitrary and capricious claim challenging the government’s termination of a contract for convenience not cognizable when the contract has a termination-for-convenience provision that would govern the outcome of such a dispute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).