Ragsdale v. Stuart

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 court was not required to address the savings that SMUD realized from 2004 to 2008, but would do so in this case
• holding that the court was not required to address the savings that SMUD realized from 2004 to 2008, but would do so in this case
• holding that the court was not required to address the savings that SMUD realized from 2004 to 2008, but would do so in this case
• “whatever affect the nuclear utility industry’s GTCC waste would have on the 1987 acceptance rate appears to be barred under the doctrine of res judicata.”
• “[T]he Government did not argue entitlement to this offset at trial, on appeal, nor did the Federal Circuit’s remand direct the court to do so.”
• “SMUD has requested an unspecified amount of damages ‘from January 1, 2004 forward’ in a separate proceeding. Accordingly the court has decided it is proper to account for any 2004-2008 SNF wet pool savings offset in that proceeding.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).