Legal Opinion

United States v. Ring Const. Co.

District Court, D. Minnesota

Decided May 16, 1953No. Civ. A. No. 2287PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NORDBYE, Chief Judge.

This cause came before the Court on plaintiffs’ motion for a summary judgment.

Pursuant to the Renegotiation Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 226, 245, 50 U.S.C.A.Appen*218dix, § 1191, the Secretary of War determined that the defendant, Ring Construction Company, had realized excessive profits from war contracts with the United States, and on December ZO, 1943, the Secretary entered a unilateral determination of such profits in the net amount of $293,844.24 and demanded their repayment. Defendant immediately filed a petition for redetermination of excessive profits under the provisions…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Billings v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  2. Royal Indemnity Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  3. Young v. GodbeSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
  4. United States v. United Drill & Tool Corp. United Drill & Tool Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1950
  5. Ring Const. Corporation v. Secretary of War of United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1949

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Eversharp, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1954
  2. Ring Const. Corp. v. United States United States v. Ring Const. CorpCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1954
  3. Swartzbaugh Manufacturing Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1961
  4. Corbin v. Federal Reserve Bank of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1979
  5. United States v. BassDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1954

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API