Legal Opinion
Union Painting Co. v. United States
District Court, D. Alaska
Decided June 13, 1961No. Civ. Nos. A-10621, A-10622PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
HODGE, Chief Judge.
Plaintiffs bring these actions under the provisions of the Tucker Act (Sec. 1346(a) (2), Title 28 U.S.C.A.) for additional compensation claimed due them as contractors under contracts with the United States for painting of barracks at Fort Richardson, Alaska. The dispute arises over a provision of the contracts that “At the option of the contractor, rubber-based paint may be applied as scheduled in above areas.” Plaintiff in each case claims that it elected to use rubber-base paint but was thereafter required by the Contracting Officer to use oil-base paint at an increased…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- United States v. WunderlichSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Volentine and Littleton v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1956
- Klein v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1961
- P.L.S. Coat & Suit Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1960
- Lowell O. West Lumber Sales, a Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Union Painting Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1961