Legal Opinion

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided October 2, 1951No. 47745PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*685HOWELL, Judge.

Plaintiff sues to recover $2,286,819.95 alleged to be reimbursable items of cost incurred in the performance of four cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contracts (hereinafter referred to as CPFF contracts) for the manufacture and delivery of military aircraft known as P-39’s or Airacobras, entered into with defendant through the United States Army Air Corps.1 Of the total sum claimed to be due under the contracts, $1,035,918.73 represent experimental and development expense, and $1,250,901.22 represent production tooling cost.2 It is plaintiff’s contention that the sum in suit represents…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. Mason & Hanger Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
  2. Wunderlich v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1950
  3. James Stewart & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1930
  4. Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corp. v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1951
  5. Todd Shipyards Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1950

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Farwell Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1953
  2. General Dynamics Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1973
  3. United States Steel Corporation v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1966
  4. Binghamton Construction Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1952
  5. Penberthy Electromelt International Inc. 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