Legal Opinion
Fru-Con Construction Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided March 31, 1999No. 97-43CPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MILLER, Judge.
The questions presented in this case, before the court after trial, are whether plaintiff encountered a differing site condition in repairing the walls of a lock and dam project and whether plaintiff is entitled to an equitable adjustment for unusually severe weather through which plaintiff was forced to accelerate in the face of significantly diminished productivity. The theme permeating this litigation is the consequences of failing to alert the Government of a condition for which a contractor does not intend to accept responsibility and of failing to keep…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Paragon Podiatry Laboratory, Inc. v. Klm Laboratories, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Lisbon Contractors, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
- Wunderlich Contracting Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965
- P.J. Maffei Building Wrecking Corporation v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Dawco Construction, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Fru-Con Construction Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1999
- Conner Brothers Construction Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
- Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
- Extreme Coatings, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
- Kiewit Construction Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2003
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.