Legal Opinion · Dissent

Riethmiller v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided May 1, 1944No. 44381Published

1DissentLittleton, Judge

The defendant interposes two defenses to plaintiff’s claim. The first goes to the entire claim made and is that plaintiff is not entitled to maintain this suit to recover increased costs that may have been incurred as a result of the enactment of the National Industrial Eecovery Act for the alleged reason that plaintiff did not file a claim, as required by the act of June 25, 1938, within six months after completion on June 8,1935, of the prime contract between the United States and Henry Ericsson & Company, and for the further reason that no extension of time was granted.

*506The second defense…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. McCloskey & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1942
  2. Kawneer Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1943

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API