Loftis v. United States
United States Court of Claims
1Opinion of the Court
LITTLETON, Judge.
Plaintiff brought this suit under a unit price contract with defendant to recover additional compensation in the total amount of $904,390.98 which he alleges became due him under the terms of the equitable adjustment provisions of Article 4 of the contract, quoted in finding 21. It is claimed that this amount, computed at $1.50 per cubic yard as a fair price for certain excavation, less 37 cents per cubic yard paid, should be allowed by reason of unknown and latent subsurface conditions encountered during performance of the contract which necessitated a large amount of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern Photo Materials Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
- The ConquerorSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Miller v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1947
- Ruff v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1942
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Hol-Gar Manufacturing Corp. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965
- United Contractors, a Co-Partnership Consisting of James E. Ward, Elkin Morris and Andrew J. Dickies v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1966
- Kaiser Industries Corporation v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965
- Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1968
- Youngdale & Sons Construction Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1993
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.