Legal Opinion

Kuney v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided February 2, 1942No. 43972PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWhitakeR, Judge

The plaintiff claims additional compensation for the time his rock crusher was idle while waiting on the defendant’s trucks to remove the stone that had been crushed.

*519On April 3,1936, the Procurement Division of the Treasury Department advertised for bids for the furnishing of a rock-crushing plant of not less than 40 cubic yards capacity per hour, with 3-bin, 100-yard bunkers. Bids on two bases were required, one on an hourly basis, the other on a cubic-yard ■basis. Invitation for bids provided, in part:

This bid is solicited in advance of allocated funds. Awards will not be made until funds…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Rust Engineering Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1938
  2. Plato v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1938
  3. Steel Products Engineering Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1931
  4. Schuler & McDonald, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1937
  5. M. Cain Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1934

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. F. H. McGraw & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1949
  2. Northwestern Engineering Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1946

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

Powered by the Exa API