TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Nl Industries, Inc. v. The United States

NL INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee

Nl Indus. v. The United States, 839 F.2d 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 24, 1988
Docket
No. 87-1474
Judges
Rich, Smith, Nichols
Citations
839 F.2d 15781988 WL 132181988 U.S. App. LEXIS 2184

Opinion — Nichols

*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.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1988: 21989: 11995: 11998: 22007: 12008: 22011: 12025: 219882026peak 1988 · 2

Most recent

  1. Nikolaisen v. United StatesNo. 24-1655 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 23, 2025)
  2. King v. United StatesNo. 23-1956 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 18, 2025)
  3. Love Terminal Partners v. United States97 Fed. Cl. 355 (Fed. Cl. 2011)
  4. Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc. v. United States84 Fed. Cl. 111 (Fed. Cl. 2008)
  5. Huntleigh USA Corporation v. United States525 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
  6. Huntleigh USA Corp. v. United States75 Fed. Cl. 642 (Fed. Cl. 2007)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Omnia Commercial Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 502 (1923) 264
NL Indus. v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 391 (Ct. Cl. 1987) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list