McDonnell Douglas Corporation, and General Dynamics Corporation v. United States, Defendant-Cross

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that \determination of legal standards is a pure issue of law\ that we review de novo
• holding that “determination of legal standards is a pure issue of law” that we review de novo
• holding that \determination of legal standards is a pure issue of law\ that we review de novo
• holding “a court’s review of default justification does not turn on the contracting officer’s subjective beliefs but rather requires an objective inquiry.”
• stating that “[i]n determining whether a default termination was justified, a court must review the evidence and circumstances surrounding the termination, and that assessment involves a consideration of factual and evidentiary issues”
• finding that the Court of Federal Claims improperly interpreted our mandate as deciding a merits question where “[o]ur ruling had a limited scope, and we emphasized that point by refusing to address the mer- its”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).