Legal Opinion

S.J. Amoroso Construction Co. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided July 2, 1992No. 91-943CPublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

LYDON, Senior Judge:

INTRODUCTION

The issue before the court involves the correct interpretation of the Buy American Act, 41 U.S.C. § 10a-§ 10d (1987) (amended 1988) (hereinafter “BAA”). Specifically, to resolve the cross motions for summary judgment, the court must decide whether, in a construction contract, the terms of the BAA apply in the aggregate to structural steel or to each individual piece of steel that is delivered to the construction site. In addition, the court must decide whether the contracting officer correctly excluded certain expenses when computing the domestic and…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Udall v. TallmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  4. Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
  5. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1934

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. S.J. Amoroso Construction Co., Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
  2. General Engineering & MacHine Works v. Sean C. O'keefe, Acting Secretary of the NavyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
  3. Department of General Services v. Harmans Associates Ltd. PartnershipCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1993
  4. District of Columbia v. Organization for Environmental Growth, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
  5. Glazer Const. Co., Inc. v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1999

2 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