Legal Opinion
Farrand Optical Co. v. United States
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 2, 1952PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GODDARD, District Judge.
Motion for summary judgment by plaintiff and cross motion by defendant..Plaintiff entered, into three cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts, (I) NObs 21258, dated; *94June 30, 1945; (2) N5ori 82, dated January-12, 1945; and (3) NOrd 7315, dated October 20,. 1944, for the production of certain equipment for the Navy. All three contracts by reference to the “Explanation of Principles for Determination of Costs under Government Contracts, War Department-Navy Department”, [printed by the United States Government Printing Office, April, 1942] include as allowable costs plaintiff’s…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Arnstein v. PorterCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- Doehler Metal Furniture Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- Begnaud v. WhiteCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1948
- Pacific Portland Cement Co. v. Food MacHinery & Chemical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1950
- Walling v. Richmond Screw Anchor Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hunt v. Mobil Oil CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1975
- Elbow Lake Cooperative Grain Company, a Minnesota Cooperative Association v. Commodity Credit Corporation, a Corporation Created by Act of CongressCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1958
- Oil Trading Associates, Inc. v. Texas City Refining, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1962