Sovereign Acts Doctrine

14 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Freedman v. The United States
  320 F.2d 359· Ct. Cl.· 1963-07-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the contract was reinstated and the defendant breached it by failing to deliver the tanks as agreed, making it liable for damages.
• D & L Constr. Co. & Assocs. v. The United States
  402 F.2d 990· Ct. Cl.· 1968-11-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the ASBCA erred in its interpretation of the contract regarding foundation requirements and that the government breached its warranty of suitable access to the project site.
• The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. The United States
  655 F.2d 1047· Ct. Cl.· 1981-06-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to monetary relief from general Treasury funds under the Tucker Act, but HUD might be liable from separate funds.
• Wah Chang Corp. v. United States
  282 F.2d 728· Ct. Cl.· 1960-10-05 ·cited 15×
  The Court of Claims held that the government was not liable for removal expenses under theories of express or implied contract, nor as a condemnor, but awarded compensation for the temporary taking of the plaintiff's right of occupancy and fixtures.
• Everett Plywood Corp. v. The United States
  651 F.2d 723· Ct. Cl.· 1981-05-20 ·cited 14×
  The government is liable for breach of contract when it unilaterally cancels a timber sale for anticipated environmental damage, and the Contract Disputes Act does not authorize interest in this case.
• Atlas Corp. v. The United States
  895 F.2d 745· Fed. Cir.· 1990-02-02 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state claims for reformation or breach of contract because the potential health hazards of mill tailings were unknowable at the time the contracts were formed, thus preventing a mutual mistake or an agreement on stabilization costs. Th
• Bruno N.Y. Indus. Corp. v. The United States
  342 F.2d 75· Ct. Cl.· 1965-03-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a Contract Change Notification (CCN) effected a change in contract specifications, entitling the plaintiff to an equitable adjustment as stipulated.
• Somerville Tech. Servs. v. The United States
  640 F.2d 1276· Ct. Cl.· 1981-01-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the United States, acting in a sovereign capacity through the FHA, is not liable to the plaintiff contractor for the unpaid balance of a construction contract or a subsequent conditional note, as there was no privity of contract and no express or implied agree
• Correlated Dev. Corp. & Hous. Consultants, Inc. v. The United States
  556 F.2d 515· Ct. Cl.· 1977-05-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government's approval of contracts and funding arrangements did not create privity of contract or liability for the actions of local housing authorities, as the government acted in its sovereign capacity.
• Winstar Corp. v. The United States
  994 F.2d 797· Fed. Cir.· 1993-08-18 ·cited 2×
  The government is liable for the financial consequences of abrogating contracts with thrift institutions, as the sovereign acts doctrine does not shield it from liability for specific contractual breaches.
• NEW ERA Constr. v. The United States
  890 F.2d 1152· Fed. Cir.· 1989-11-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was not a party to the construction contract and therefore not liable to the contractor, as the contractor's only contractual relationship was with a local housing authority.
• Ottinger v. The United States
  301 F.2d 336· Ct. Cl.· 1962-04-04
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish any legal or equitable right to recover losses incurred on government construction contracts due to labor disputes and the United States Employment Service's refusal to refer labor.