Legal Opinion
Oak Forest, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided October 15, 1992No. 90-102LPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRUGGINK, Judge.
Pending are motions of Whitfield Engineers Co., Inc. (“Whitfield”), and Sur-Tech, Inc. (“Sur-Tech”) to quash notice. The motions raise a question as to the application of RUSCC 14, dealing with third-party practice. The question arises in the context of a claim for the taking of real property, specifically, the Oak Forest subdivision of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. The claim is asserted by plaintiffs, Oak Forest, Inc., J. Bice Ward, Carl J. Ward, William E. Ward, Carl J. Ward & Sons, Inc., Richard Ward, and William E. Ward & Sons, Inc., against the United States…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Hansberry v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- National Labor Relations Board v. Bildisco & BildiscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. PopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Wolfchild v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
- Rockwell International Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1994
- Uusi, LLC, and Oldnar Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
- Bird v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2002
- Orion Scientific Systems v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1993
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.