Legal Opinion
Burton E. Carr and Marie A. Carr v. City of Anchorage, a Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided April 22, 1957No. 15236_1PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HAMLEY, Circuit Judge.
This action was brought to recover the agreed consideration under an oral contract between plaintiffs and the city of Anchorage, Alaska. Plaintiffs al leged that the contract had been fully executed on their part, and that defendant had benefited therefrom.
Defendant moved for a summary judgment. It did so on the ground that there was a failure to comply with certain necessary formalities governing the formation of municipal contracts. The motion was granted, and such a judgment was entered. Plaintiffs appeal.
The only question presented on this appeal is whether defendant…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Layne-Western Co. v. Buchanan CountyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1936
- Vito v. Town of SimsburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1913
- Hebets v. ScottCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1945
- Independent Paving Co. v. City of Bay St. LouisCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1935
3Cited by5 opinions
- Seaboard Surety Company, a New York Corp., and Hansen & Rowland, Inc., a Washington Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1962
- Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Corporation v. Laverl Johnson and Joleen Johnson, Husband and Wife, and Pacific Fruit Express Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957
- Union Stock Farms v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Nathan MillerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959
- Sutton v. BrownIdaho Supreme Court · 1962
- Sequoia Union High School District v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957