Legal Opinion
Electrical Construction & Maintenance Company, Inc. v. Maeda Pacific Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 25, 1985No. 84-2087PublishedCited by 59 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge.
Appellant subcontractor seeks damages based on breach of contract and promissory estoppel against appellee general contractor. Appellant appeals from the District Court of Guam’s order of dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. For the reasons stated below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
FACTS
Appellant Electrical Construction & Maintenance Company, Inc. (ECM), and ap-pellee Maeda Pacific Corporation (Maeda) are construction contractors.
The government of Guam awarded appel-lee Maeda the prime contract on the Container…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- NORTH STAR INTERNATIONAL, a Nevada Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION, Et Al., Defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
- McLINN v. FJORDCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- Drennan v. Star Paving Co.California Supreme Court · 1958
- Bemis Bro. Bag Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- C & K ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS v. Amber Steel Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by59 opinions
- Richard McGary v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Pavel Enterprises, Inc. v. AS Johnson Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1996
- Jarvis v. ReganCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- Townsend Contracting v. JENSEN CIV. CONST.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1999
- Dale A. Crull and Theresa M. Crull, Husband and Wife v. Gem Insurance Company, a Utah CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.