Legal Opinion
Maitland Bros. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided March 28, 1990No. 428-88 CPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RADER, Judge.
In 1977, the Maitland Brothers Company (plaintiff or Maitland) entered a contract with the United States Naval Facilities Engineering Command (Navy). The contract required plaintiff to install submarine pipelines in a trench beneath the Elizabeth River, at Norfolk, Virginia.
Plaintiff laid the pipelines, but the Navy later ordered Maitland to redo the work. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA or Board) sustained the Navy’s orders.
Plaintiff appeals from the Board’s decision. The ASBCA determined that plaintiff did not fulfill the contract requirements.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Richardson v. PeralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and United States of America, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Intervenor. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and United States of America, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Intervenor. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc. Ecology Action Club Sandra Silver Gordon Silver Elizabeth Apfelberg and John J. Forster v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and United States of America, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Intervenor. George Deukmejian, Governor of the State of California v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and United States of America, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Intervenor. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and United States of America, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- Ernest M. Spurlock v. Department of JusticeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- United States v. Turner Construction CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1987
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Fru-Con Construction Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1999
- Gulf Contracting, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1991
- Lublin Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
- Round Place, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1994
- Granite Construction Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1991