Legal Opinion
Saligman v. United States
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided August 25, 1944No. 3378PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KALODNER, District Judge.
The plaintiffs have brought this action against the United States of America under the Tucker Act, 36 Stat. 1093 (1911) as amended, 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(20). The sole question for determination is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for their unilateral mistake in the preparation of a bid contract accepted by the United States and now fully performed.
The cause was heard without a jury and was submitted for consideration upon the pleadings, additional testimony and arguments of counsel. Accordingly, I make the following
Findings of Fact
1. On or about…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Steinmeyer v. SchroeppelIllinois Supreme Court · 1907
- Kemp v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1941
- State of Connecticut v. FH McGraw & Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1941
- United States v. ContiCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1941
- Alta Electric & Mechanical Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1940
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Wender Presses, Inc. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965
- Tony Downs Foods Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1976
- Graham v. ClydeSupreme Court of Florida · 1952
- School District of Scottsbluff v. Olson Const. Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1950
- CN Monroe Manufacturing Company v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1956
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.