Legal Opinion
Moosman v. Joseph P. Blitz, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided March 29, 1966No. 276, Docket 29930PublishedCited by 63 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
J. JOSEPH SMITH, Circuit Judge:
In action by painting subcontractor on 500 unit Capehart Act project at New London, Connecticut, against the general contractor and its surety, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Edward C. McLean, District Judge, entered judgment for the plaintiff on the complaint and for the defendant to recover on the counterclaim. Both parties appeal. We find no error and affirm the judgment.
Moosman brought this action for the balance due under his contract with Blitz, for regular work at the agreed price, and for extra work, which under the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Florence O'CampO v. Edna Hardisty, Paul H. Wright, R. v. Rushford, N. P. Hughes and N. DrakulichCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1958
- Campbell v. RockefellerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1948
- Woods v. RobbCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1948
- Bush v. Remington Rand, Inc. Bush v. Remington Rand, IncCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1954
- Bowers v. E. J. Rose Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1945
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by63 opinions
- Michael J. Conlon v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Freedson v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1975
- Virginia M. Gutting v. Falstaff Brewing Corporation, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1983
- American Automobile Ass'n v. AAA Legal Clinic of Jefferson Crooke, P.C.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991
- Donovan v. Carls Drug Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.