Legal Opinion

Murdaugh Stuart Madden and Clifford J. Hynning v. The United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided January 20, 1967No. 399-62PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

PER CURIAM *

The present plaintiffs, two Washington lawyers, successfully prosecuted a claim on behalf of Industrial Finishers, Inc., an Ohio corporation, against the Cleveland Ordnance District (of the Army) for an equitable adjustment under a contract performed by Finishers for Cleveland Ordnance. They accepted the retainer on a contingency basis which was later amplified by an express agreement for 30 percent of the recovery. After they had established Finishers' right to an equitable adjustment in the amount of $34,000 (reflecting a fee of $10,200), the Small Business Administration…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. United States v. Munsey Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Piggly Wiggly Corporation v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1949
  3. General Casualty Company of America v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1955
  4. Pittman v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1953
  5. Kearney v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1961

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Cecile Industries, Inc./ronald Lipshie, Trustee in Bankruptcy v. Dick Cheney, Secretary of DefenseCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
  2. Project Map, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1973
  3. Burlington Northern Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1972
  4. Chapman v. United StatesDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1972
  5. JGB Enterprises, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008

1 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