Legal Opinion
Edmonston v. Holder
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided November 23, 1948No. Nos. 33055, 33056PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, J.
Though separately filed and briefed the above entitled causes were consolidated for the purpose of the oral argument and same are consolidated for the purpose of review.
Incidental to the construction by the United States of the pipe line from Texas to the eastern seaboard, known as the “Big Inch”, there was created the War Emergency Pipelines, Inc., hereinafter referred to as W. E. P., which, as an agency of the Federal Government, was authorized to make contracts for the construction thereof. The W. E. P. requested bids for the construction of the pipe line on a “cost plus fixed fee” basis.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- O. K. Boiler & Welding Co. v. Minnetonka Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
- Hawkins v. MattesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- Clark v. Armstrong MurphySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937
- Vilbig Const. Co. v. WhithamSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1944
- Cox v. Gille Hardware and Iron Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1899
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Albina Engine & Machine Works, Inc. v. AbelCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1962
- Wat Henry Pontiac, Inc. v. PitcockSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1956
- Mead v. MeadSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1956
- Finance Corporation v. Modern Materials CompanySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1957
- Albina Engine and MacHine Works, Inc. v. R. A. Abel and Safway Rental and Sales Company, Safway Rental and Sales Company, Cross-Appellant v. R. A. Abel and Albina Engine and MacHine Works, Inc., Cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1962
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.