Kleemann v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.

How later courts describe this case

• holding that the government did not relinquish discretion when it significantly participated in a back and forth design process
• excusing exhaustion because state officials and courts consistently delayed determination of petitioner’s challenge to the length of his sentence
• affirming summary judgment for contractor sued by plaintiffs for defective landing gear of a F/A-18 fighter jet; noting, further, extensive government participation and intimate involvement in the planning, development and approval of the feature involved in alleged design defect
• failure of ejection seat on F-16C aircraft; “qualitative, precatory goals” held not to be reasonably precise qualifications