Legal Opinion

Vemo Co. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided November 27, 1985No. 589-84CPublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

YOCK, Judge.

This contract case comes before the Court on the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that its claim is time-barred by the statute of limitations prescribed by 41 U.S.C. § 609(a) (1982). The defendant’s motion will be treated as a motion for summary judgment, since various evidentiary materials have been submitted for the consideration of the Court in acting on the motion. See RUSCC 12(b).

For the reasons discussed herein, the motion is denied. There is no dispute on the material facts.

Facts

On September 30, 1982, The Vemo Company (“Vemo”)…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Brookfield Construction Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1981
  2. G & H Machinery Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1985

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Pathman Construction Company, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
  2. Maryland State Police v. Warwick Supply & Equipment Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1993
  3. Durable Metal Products, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1990
  4. Kunz Construction Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1987
  5. LaCoste v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1986

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API