Add to ORKGThe United States Supreme Court held that the federal government cannot be liable in contract for breach of implied-in-law warranties by government contractors who incur expenses in defending third party tort claims arising from the contractors\u27 compulsory production of war materials in accordance with government-furnished specifications. Hercules, Inc. v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 981 (1996)
Plaintiff, a manufacturer of war materials under subcontracts with government contractors, filed sui...
X had a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract with the federal government, under which the government reser...
This Article is about the military contractor defense: the legal doctrine which insulates weapons ma...
Courts are unwilling to impose products liability on government contractors, particularly during war...
The government contract defense is an affirmative defense that shields a manufacturer from liability...
In Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., the United States Supreme Court held military contractors who...
In recent years, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of immunity afforded to contractors for damag...
As military functions are increasingly outsourced to corporate contractors, civil courts face adjudi...
Sometimes acts of the federal government cause harm; sometimes acts of contractors hired by the fede...
Litigation involving defective products has increasingly become a pre-trial battle to overcome a ser...
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company contracted with the Atomic Energy Commission to construct and o...
In Feres v. United States, military personnel were denied the right to sue the United States under t...
During World War II, the U.S. Government sought out contractors in the name of “patriotism” to resea...
The government contract defense, known as the Boyle defense, shields those successfully invoking it ...
The doctrine of the immunity of the sovereign in tort has long been the subject of attack by statesm...
Plaintiff, a manufacturer of war materials under subcontracts with government contractors, filed sui...
X had a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract with the federal government, under which the government reser...
This Article is about the military contractor defense: the legal doctrine which insulates weapons ma...
Courts are unwilling to impose products liability on government contractors, particularly during war...
The government contract defense is an affirmative defense that shields a manufacturer from liability...
In Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., the United States Supreme Court held military contractors who...
In recent years, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of immunity afforded to contractors for damag...
As military functions are increasingly outsourced to corporate contractors, civil courts face adjudi...
Sometimes acts of the federal government cause harm; sometimes acts of contractors hired by the fede...
Litigation involving defective products has increasingly become a pre-trial battle to overcome a ser...
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company contracted with the Atomic Energy Commission to construct and o...
In Feres v. United States, military personnel were denied the right to sue the United States under t...
During World War II, the U.S. Government sought out contractors in the name of “patriotism” to resea...
The government contract defense, known as the Boyle defense, shields those successfully invoking it ...
The doctrine of the immunity of the sovereign in tort has long been the subject of attack by statesm...
Plaintiff, a manufacturer of war materials under subcontracts with government contractors, filed sui...
X had a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract with the federal government, under which the government reser...
This Article is about the military contractor defense: the legal doctrine which insulates weapons ma...