§Why CasetextPricing

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY v. United States

CROSS MOTION and RESPONSE to 81 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

28 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 236,022 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

  2. Rumsfeld v. United Technologies Corp.

    315 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 32 times
    In Rumsfeld, we held that CAS standards were not properly interpreted by considering the “views of... self-proclaimed CAS experts,” including a former CASB employee. 315 F.3d at 1369.

  3. K-Con Bldg. Sys., Inc. v. United States

    778 F.3d 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2015)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that a claim for "breach of contract for not constructing a building on time" is different from a claim of "breach of contract for constructing with the wrong materials"

  4. Raytheon Co. v. United States

    747 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 10 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Nos. 2013–5004 2013–5006. 2014-04-4 RAYTHEON COMPANY, Plaintiff–Cross–Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant–Appellant. Karen L. Manos, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-cross-appellant. With her on the brief were John W.F. Chesley and Greta B. Williams. C. Coleman Bird, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Stuart F. Delery

  5. Redland Company, Inc. v. U.S.

    No. 08-606 C (Fed. Cl. Apr. 7, 2011)   Cited 11 times
    Declining to consider new claim first raised in motion for summary judgment and not contained in complaint

  6. Do-Well Mach. Shop, Inc. v. U.S.

    870 F.2d 637 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that a valid affirmative defense—that the contractor's claim is time barred—did not divest the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals of jurisdiction, although it may give rise to a successful motion for summary judgment or dismissal for failure to state a claim

  7. The Kroger Co. v. Appalachian Power Co.

    244 Va. 560 (Va. 1992)   Cited 12 times
    Holding tariff purporting to shield a utility from all liability in providing power to a customer beyond the delivery point does not shield the utility from the common-law duty not to reenergize a customer's lines when it knows the lines located beyond the delivery point are defective

  8. Emeco Industries, Inc. v. United States

    485 F.2d 652 (Fed. Cir. 1973)   Cited 29 times
    Listing applying the elements of equitable estoppel against the government

  9. Manloading Management Assoc. v. U.S.

    461 F.2d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 1972)   Cited 20 times
    In Manloading and Management, supra at 1302-03, the court noted that the misrepresentations did not have the effect of nullifying a statutory requirement.

  10. Commonwealth v. Vepco

    214 Va. 457 (Va. 1974)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    42995 Record Nos. 8252-8258. January 14, 1974 Present, All the Justices. (1) Corporation Commission — Electric Utility Rates — Charges to Governments. (2) Statutory Construction — Constitutional Construction — Superfluous Words. 1. Code sections not in conflict. Power to regulate rates of electric companies was given to State Corporation Commission by General Assembly with exemption from regulation of rates for service rendered governmental entities. 2. New constitution gives power to State Corporation

  11. Section 7101 - Definitions

    41 U.S.C. § 7101   Cited 214 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Providing that a "contactor" is "a party to a Federal Government contract other than the Federal Government"

  12. Section 7103 - Decision by contracting officer

    41 U.S.C. § 7103   Cited 161 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Setting a six-year limitations period for contract claims against the government

  13. Section 56-234 - Duty to furnish adequate service at reasonable and uniform rates

    Va. Code § 56-234   Cited 7 times

    A. It shall be the duty of every public utility to furnish reasonably adequate service and facilities at reasonable and just rates to any person, firm or corporation along its lines desiring same. Notwithstanding any other provision of law: 1. A telephone company shall not have the duty to extend or expand its facilities to furnish service and facilities when the person, firm or corporation has service available from one or more alternative providers of wireline or terrestrial wireless communications

  14. Section 2688 - Utility systems: conveyance authority

    10 U.S.C. § 2688   Cited 4 times

    (a) CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY.-The Secretary of a military department may convey a utility system, or part of a utility system, under the jurisdiction of the Secretary to a municipal, private, regional, district, or cooperative utility company or other entity. The conveyance may consist of all right, title, and interest of the United States in the utility system or such lesser estate as the Secretary considers appropriate to serve the interests of the United States. (b) SELECTION OF CONVEYEE.- (1) If

  15. Section 56-232 - Public utility and schedules defined

    Va. Code § 56-232   Cited 3 times

    A. The term "public utility" as used in §§ 56-233 to 56-240 and 56-246 to 56-250: 1. Shall mean and embrace every corporation (other than a municipality), company, individual, or association of individuals or cooperative, their lessees, trustees, or receivers, appointed by any court whatsoever, that now or hereafter may own, manage or control any plant or equipment or any part of a plant or equipment within the Commonwealth for the conveyance of telephone messages or for the production, transmission

  16. Section 56-235 - When Commission may fix rates, schedules, etc.; conformance with chapter

    Va. Code § 56-235   Cited 1 times

    If upon investigation the rates, tolls, charges, schedules, or joint rates of any public utility operating in this Commonwealth shall be found to be unjust, unreasonable, insufficient or unjustly discriminatory or to be preferential or otherwise in violation of any of the provisions of law, the State Corporation Commission shall have power to fix and order substituted therefor such rate or rates, tolls, charges or schedules as shall be just and reasonable. All rates, tolls, charges or schedules set

  17. Section 56-236 - Public utilities required to file schedules of rates and charges; rules and regulations; when detariffing of telephone services to be permitted

    Va. Code § 56-236   Cited 1 times

    A. Unless the Commission determines otherwise, every public utility shall be required to file with the Commission and to keep open to public inspection schedules showing rates and charges, either for itself, or joint rates and charges between itself and any other public utility. Every public utility shall file with, and as a part of, such schedules, copies of all rules and regulations that in any manner affect the rates charged or to be charged. B. The Commission shall permit, but may not mandate

  18. Section 56-1 - Definitions

    Va. Code § 56-1   Cited 1 times

    Whenever used in this title, unless the context requires a different meaning: "Broadband connection," for purposes of this section, means a connection where transmission speeds exceed 200 kilobits per second in at least one direction. "Commission" means the State Corporation Commission. "Corporation" or "company" includes all corporations created by acts of the General Assembly of Virginia, or under the general incorporation laws of this Commonwealth, or doing business therein, and shall exclude

  19. Section 56-234.2 - Review of rates

    Va. Code § 56-234.2

    The Commission shall review the rates of any public utility on an annual basis when, in the opinion of the Commission, such annual review is in the public interest, provided that the rates of a public utility subject to § 56-585.1 shall be reviewed in accordance with subsection A of that section. Va. Code § 56-234.2 1972, c. 537; 2007, cc. 888, 933. Amended by Acts 2007, cc. 888, 933. Amended by Acts 1972, c. 537.

  20. Section 2.101 - Definitions

    48 C.F.R. § 2.101   Cited 117 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Raising the amount to $150,000

  21. Section 52.249-2 - Termination for Convenience of the Government (Fixed-Price)

    48 C.F.R. § 52.249-2   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating under a termination-for-convenience, contractor is entitled to recover the reasonable costs of settlement, including "[a]ccounting, legal, clerical, and other expenses reasonably necessary for the preparation of termination settlement proposals and supporting data" and for the "termination and settlement of subcontracts"

  22. Section 31.201-2 - Determining allowability

    48 C.F.R. § 31.201-2   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that for determinations of allowability "[s]tandards promulgated by the CAS Board, if applicable [are to be applied]; otherwise, generally accepted accounting principles and practices appropriate to the particular circumstances"

  23. Section 49.201 - General

    48 C.F.R. § 49.201   Cited 8 times

    (a) A settlement should compensate the contractor fairly for the work done and the preparations made for the terminated portions of the contract, including a reasonable allowance for profit. Fair compensation is a matter of judgment and cannot be measured exactly. In a given case, various methods may be equally appropriate for arriving at fair compensation. The use of business judgment, as distinguished from strict accounting principles, is the heart of a settlement. (b) The primary objective is

  24. Section 31.201-4 - Determining allocability

    48 C.F.R. § 31.201-4   Cited 7 times
    Discussing the allowability of costs "to a Government contract"

  25. Section 49.202 - Profit

    48 C.F.R. § 49.202   Cited 6 times

    (a) The TCO shall allow profit on preparations made and work done by the contractor for the terminated portion of the contract but not on the settlement expenses. Anticipatory profits and consequential damages shall not be allowed (but see 49.108-5). Profit for the contractor's efforts in settling subcontractor proposals shall not be based on the dollar amount of the subcontract settlement agreements but the contractor's efforts will be considered in determining the overall rate of profit allowed

  26. Section 31.205-42 - Termination costs

    48 C.F.R. § 31.205-42   Cited 4 times

    Contract terminations generally give rise to the incurrence of costs or the need for special treatment of costs that would not have arisen had the contract not been terminated. The following cost principles peculiar to terminktion situations are to be used in conjunction with the other cost principles in subpart 31.2: (a)Common items. The costs of items reasonably usable on the contractor's other work shall not be allowable unless the contractor submits evidence that the items could not be retained

  27. Section 31.201 - General

    48 C.F.R. § 31.201   Cited 3 times

    48 C.F.R. § 31.201

  28. Section 49.203 - Adjustment for loss

    48 C.F.R. § 49.203   Cited 1 times

    (a) In the negotiation or determination of any settlement, the TCO shall not allow profit if it appears that the contractor would have incurred a loss had the entire contract been completed. The TCO shall negotiate or determine the amount of loss and make an adjustment in the amount of settlement as specified in paragraph (b) or (c) below. In estimating the cost to complete, the TCO shall consider expected production efficiencies and other factors affecting the cost to complete. (b) If the settlement