U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1980

General Railway Signal Company v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided December 9, 1980 · McGowan, Edwards, Green

664 F.2d 296; 214 U.S. App. D.C. 170; 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 11597 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Leonard Petkoff, Washington, D. C., with whom Tod Gold, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant., William Eggers, Rochester, N. Y., of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York Pro Hac Vice by Special Leave of Court. Mark H. Tuohey, Rochester, N. Y., was on the brief,, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision. The 8 that cite it most often are listed here.

General Railway Signal Co. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (D.C. Cir. 1989)
Granite-Groves v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (D.C. Cir. 1988)
District of Columbia v. Pierce Associates, Inc. (D.C. 1987)
Expressway Const. v. WASH. METRO. A. TRANSIT AUTH. (District Court, District of Columbia 1987)
Expressway Construction, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (District Court, District of Columbia 1987)
General Railway Signal Co. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (District Court, District of Columbia 1985)
Excavation Construction, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (District Court, District of Columbia 1984)
Texas State Commission v. United States (Court of Claims 1984)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the judgment here appealed from on the basis of the opinions and orders of the District Court dated August 5, 1977 and November 13,1979. App. 819 and 1314. In our view, the District Court opinions properly held that the law governing this case is the law of the District of Columbia, D.C.Code Ann. §§ 15-108, 15-109 (1973); that the disputed contract included an implied condition requiring WMATA to make equitable adjustments of claims under the contract within a reasonable period of time; that a failure to comply with that condition could give rise to a claim for interest under the parties’ contract; that there was no substantial evidence to support WMATA’s finding of no unreasonable delay; and that, therefore, interest was properly given under the contract pursuant to applicable District of Columbia law.

So ordered.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.