In re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contracts Litigation
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
563 F.2d 992 (1977)
- Written by David Bloom, JD
Facts
Several utility companies (plaintiffs) sued Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Westinghouse) (defendant) for breach of contract, alleging that Westinghouse had failed to deliver uranium at an agreed-upon price. In its defense, Westinghouse asserted that performance under the contract became impracticable after various uranium producers conspired to drive up the price of uranium. Westinghouse issued a subpoena upon Rio Algom Corporation, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Canada that operated a Utah uranium mine. The subpoena directed Rio Algom to furnish business records and to produce its president, George Albino, a Canadian resident, for a deposition. Westinghouse obtained similar discovery from other uranium producers. Rio Algom motioned to quash the subpoena, arguing that compliance with the subpoena would force Rio Algom to violate Canadian atomic-energy secrecy laws that had been enacted during the litigation. The district court denied the motion and ordered Rio Algom’s compliance with the subpoena. Rio Algom unsuccessfully asked the Canadian government for permission to disclose the documents. After Rio Algom failed to comply with the discovery order, the district court held Rio Algom in contempt and imposed sanctions. Rio Algom appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McWilliams, J.)
Dissent (Doyle, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
