Nl Industries, Inc. v. The United States

839 F.2d 1578, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 2184, 1988 WL 13218
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedFebruary 24, 1988
Docket87-1474
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 839 F.2d 1578 (Nl Industries, Inc. v. The United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nl Industries, Inc. v. The United States, 839 F.2d 1578, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 2184, 1988 WL 13218 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Opinion

*1579 NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge.

This is a companion case to Allied-General Nuclear Services, et al. v. United States, No. 87-1481, brought also in the Claims Court and decided on cross-motions for summary judgment by the same judge at the same time. Whereas Allied-General was to serve the purpose of the government by reprocessing the spent fuel remaining after its power-producing capability had been exhausted in nuclear power plants, NL Industries was to transport the spent fuel to the Barnwell plant for reprocessing, a difficult and dangerous job. To do it, NL Industries built an elaborate and costly fleet of transportation equipment, which has become useless owing to President Carter’s decision not to allow the Barnwell plant to operate. Appellant admits its claim is subject to the same infirmities as that of Allied-General, plus the added one that the act constituting the alleged taking had as its target Allied-General, not NL Industries, so NL Industries is separated from it by an additional step. The trial court, 12 Cl.Ct. 391, rightly, we think, thought that Omnia Commercial Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 502, 43 S.Ct. 437, 67 L.Ed. 773 (1923), was, by itself, authority enough to support its holding that frustration of a business by loss of a customer was not a taking.

The trial court severed counts II and IV of the amended complaint under its Rule 54(b) and its judgment does not relate to them. This action economizes judicial resources by allowing consideration of the “taking” counts I and III, together with Allied-General’s appeal. The severed counts allege breach of contract implied in fact. The trial court, following our remand, will consider them and take appropriate action.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Nikolaisen v. United States
Federal Claims, 2025
King v. United States
Federal Circuit, 2025
Love Terminal Partners v. United States
97 Fed. Cl. 355 (Federal Claims, 2011)
Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc. v. United States
84 Fed. Cl. 111 (Federal Claims, 2008)
Huntleigh USA Corporation v. United States
525 F.3d 1370 (Federal Circuit, 2008)
Huntleigh USA Corp. v. United States
75 Fed. Cl. 642 (Federal Claims, 2007)
M & Z CAB CORP. v. City of Chicago
18 F. Supp. 2d 941 (N.D. Illinois, 1998)
Robbins v. United States
40 Fed. Cl. 381 (Federal Claims, 1998)
Nuclear Transport & Storage, Inc. v. United States
890 F.2d 1348 (Sixth Circuit, 1989)
Nuclear Transport & Storage, Inc. v. United States
703 F. Supp. 660 (E.D. Tennessee, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
839 F.2d 1578, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 2184, 1988 WL 13218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nl-industries-inc-v-the-united-states-cafc-1988.