State ex rel. Brignac v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the plaintiff “did not show that these costs were related to the breach”
• explaining that Government “statements in the late 1980’s expressing doubt that DOE would meet the 1998 deadline did not rise to the level of repudiation.”
• finding Department of Energy not responsible for damages where those damages could not be foreseen
• “Plaintiff emphasized ... possible costs in 2005 or 2006, extending forty years or more into the future.”
• “Defendant made statements in 1987 and 1989 suggesting that DOE might not meet the 1998 deadline.”
• Court unable to discern nonreeoverable litigation fees from other damages

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).