# Northern Helex Co. v. United States

> United States Court of Claims · October 22, 1980 · 634 F.2d 557

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8597149

## Case

- **Full name:** NORTHERN HELEX COMPANY v. United States
- **Court:** United States Court of Claims
- **Decided:** October 22, 1980
- **Citations:** 634 F.2d 557; 28 Cont. Cas. Fed. 80,804; 225 Ct. Cl. 194; 1980 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 341
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Davis
- **Judges:** Davis, Friedman, Kunzig, Nichols, Smith
- **Cited by:** 65 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8597149

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that damages should be reduced by “the extent that the breach itself made [the plaintiffs property] more valuable to the plaintiff,” but that damages should not be reduced by “increases in the value of [the plaintiffs property] that either resulted from the performance…

## Opinion text

DAVIS, Judge,
concurring:
If the issue were open, I tend to think that plaintiff might well not recover the full measure of anticipated profits for the period after the contract was terminated by Secretary Morton or Under Secretary Russell — if either of those terminations were held to be valid. But the issue of the validity of those terminations has not been litigated or conceded in this case, and the court’s opinion of 1975, reported at 207 Ct. Cl. 862 , 524 F.2d 707 , seems to me to have rejected this possible defense and to have removed the terminations entirely from this case. Because I am bound under the doctrine of the law of the case by that decision of the court — which I do not regard as clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust — I now join in the Chief Judge’s opinion and in the result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8597149. Public record. Not legal advice.