Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): v. United States, 271 F.3d 1327, 1329 (Fed.Cir.2001) (ruling that “the Takings Clause does not apply to legislation requiring the payment of money.”). Plaintiff has not shown that it is entitled to damages under a theory independent of the rights accorded Canal Electric under the Standard Contract. Plaintiff’s assertions that the Government’s failure to remove and dispose of nuclear waste required Canal to provide facilities to “store SNF beyond the date when the Government was required to assume such obligations,” and that the Government “forced nuclear utilities, including Canal, to expend their own resources to plan for the disposal of SNF,” are classic breach of contract allegations. See Northern States Power Co. v. United States Dep’t of Energy, 128 F.3d 754, 759 (D.C.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff complains of being “deprived of the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the right of action accrued upon failure to perform contract (B) holding that a contract must entitle the plaintiff to money damages in the event of the governments breach of that contract (C) holding that an order is not a final appealable order when it does not dispose of the complaints against all of the defendants (D) holding that utilities must pursue the remedies provided in the standard contract in the event that doe does not perform its duty to dispose of the snf by january 31 1998 (E) recognizing that a construction contract implicitly imposes a duty on contractors to perform work according to the standard of due care
Output (English): holding that a contract must entitle the plaintiff to money damages in the event of the governments breach of that contract