Malone v. United States
Malone v. United States
857 F.2d 787; 1988 WL 98869
(Federal Reporter, Second Series)
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Guardian Angels Medical Service Dogs, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2016)
- Securiforce International America, LLC v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2016)
- Baistar Mechanical, Inc. v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2016)
- Dobyns v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2014)
- Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2014)
- Information Systems & Networks, Corp. v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2008)
- North Star Alaska Housing Corp. v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2007)
- La Gloria Oil & Gas Co. v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2006)
- Granite Management Corp. v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2006)
- Centex Corp. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2005)
- Southern Comfort Builders, Inc. v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2005)
- Old Stone Corp. v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2004)
- Deponte Investments, Inc. v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2002)
- Essex Electro Engineers, Inc.,appellant v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary of the Navy (Fed. Cir. 2000)
- Metric Systems Corp v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida 1994)
- Stone Forest Industries, Inc. v. The United States, Defendant/cross-Appellant (Fed. Cir. 1993)
- C.B.C. Enterprises, Inc. v. United States (Court of Claims 1991)
- Crippen & Graen Corp. v. United States (Court of Claims 1989)
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 of the Court
ORDER
Having considered the Petition for Rehearing, the panel grants that Petition to the extent of ordering the following change in the opinion. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT
On Page 1445, Section II, of the opinion decided June 16, 1988, the following footnote is inserted at the end of the second sentence:
* The contract at issue contained the Disputes clause set forth in 32 C.F.R. § 7-103.12(a)-(h). Thus, we need not, and do not, decide if a contractor’s failure to perform can be excused by the government’s material breach if the contract contains the Disputes clause set forth in 32 C.F.R. § 7-103.12(b).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.