In the 1982 case, Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States et al., the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S government and against Lockheed Aircraft Corporation (now known as Lockheed Martin). The dispute arose from a contract between Lockheed and the federal government for aircraft production during World War II. Under this contract, any excess profits would be returned to the government after an audit by a "Renegotiation Board". However, due to delays in auditing process, some payments were made late which led to interest accruing on them. When these interests were not paid by the Government, it resulted into litigation. The court held that under Public Law 92-41 - enacted specifically for such renegotiations - no interest could accrue on such repayments until they had been officially established through either agreement or litigation; thus relieving Government from paying accrued interests before official establishment of repayment amounts.

In the dissenting opinion for Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States et al., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to hold Lockheed liable for damages resulting from a plane crash was incorrect because it failed to consider key aspects of contract law and government regulations. He contended that when Lockheed designed and manufactured the aircraft, they did so under specific instructions from the U.S. Government, which included detailed specifications about its design, construction materials used, testing procedures etc., making them essentially an agent of the government rather than an independent contractor with full control over their product’s safety features or potential defects. Therefore, he believed that any liability should fall on the government who had ultimate authority over these decisions instead of on Lockheed who merely followed those directives.