Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pope v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided October 1, 1945No. 45704Published

1DissentLittletoN, Judge

I concur in the opinion allowing plaintiff compensation under the Special Act at contract rates (1) for excavation and concrete because of materials that caved in at the side of the tunnel wall and the lowering of the “B” line, (2) for dry packing certain areas of the caved-in space over the tunnel arch, and (3) for grouting such dry-packed space, but I cannot concur in the conclusion *519that the special jurisdictional act does not assume an obligation for and does not authorize the court to allow plaintiff compensation at the contract rate “for the work of excavating materials which caved in…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Caminetti v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  2. Pope v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
  3. Pennsylvania Railroad v. International Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
  4. Lake County v. RollinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  5. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. CraftSupreme Court of the United States · 1915

11 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