Legal Opinion

Clark v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided July 17, 1964No. Cong. No. 10-58PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLaramore, Judge

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1492 and 2509, the United States Senate, through Senate Resolution 344,1 has asked us to pass upon the question of whether or not plaintiff is legally or equitably entitled to be additionally compensated for transportation services rendered by plaintiff for defendant during the period 1944 to 1946 at the Atomic Energy Commission installation at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

At the outset it is pointed out that no legal liability would exist against the United States, for plaintiff’s cause of action would be barred by limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2501. The petition was filed…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Glidden Co. v. ZdanokSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. S. N. T. Fratelli Gondrand v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1964
  3. Wilson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1960
  4. O'Donnell v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1964
  5. Ralph Feffer & Sons v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1964

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. INSLAW, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1996
  2. Banfi Products Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1997
  3. Bear Claw Tribe, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1996
  4. California Canners & Growers Ass'n v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1984
  5. Elmers v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965

1 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