Worthington v. Westnet

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that debt augmenting its capital structure was used to mitigate DOE’s partial breach
• holding that utility presented sufficient evidence showing that it would have pursued cheaper interim storage options in the but-for world
• holding that utility presented sufficient evidence showing that it would have pursued cheaper interim storage options in the but-for world
• holding that plaintiff faded to demonstrate beyond the existence of debt to augment its capital structure that any of the funds were used to mitigate DOE’s partial breach
• noting that the “Standard Contract did not specify a rate for the acceptance of spent fuel by DOE ... although defendant urges us to resolve this acceptance rate issue now, we do not need to do so[.]”
• including in mitigation costs, expenses in 1988 when, on facts presented, the utility has reason to know of impending breach

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).