Legal Opinion

Valley Inland Pacific Constructors, Inc. v. Clackamas Water District No. 2

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 10, 1979No. 76-7-6, CA 11243PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.

This is an action for damages claimed by the contractor for breach of a contract to construct a reservoir. Naintiff Valley Inland Pacific Constructors, Inc. (VIP-30), was the general contractor on the job. Defendants ire Clackamas Water District No. 2 (District), the (ublic body for which the reservoir was being contracted, and Cornell, Howland, Hayes & Merrifield/-lill (CH2M), the engineering firm in charge. The )istrict counterclaimed against VIPCO for allegedly lefective work and late completion. The District also iled a third party complaint against CH2M for any lamages awarded VIPCO.…

2Cases cited14 opinions

Gagne v. BertranCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
Derenco, Inc. v. Benj. Franklin Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nOregon Supreme Court · 1978
Buck v. MuellerOregon Supreme Court · 1960
State Highway Commission v. Superbilt Manufacturing Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1955
Parker v. Harris Pine Mills, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1955

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

3Cited by16 opinions

Wickham v. Gulf Oil Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1981
Young v. Flathead CountyMontana Supreme Court · 1988
Cook v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1981
Hackett v. StreeterIdaho Court of Appeals · 1985
1998-2 Trade Cases P 72,237, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6428, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8897 Portland 76 Auto/truck Plaza, Inc. v. Union Oil Company of California, Dba Unocal Corporation National Auto/truckstops Incorporated, and Gordon A. Barron, Jr. Joan L. Barron, Counter-Defendants-Appellants. Portland 76 Auto/truck Plaza, Inc. v. Union Oil Company of California, Dba Unocal Corporation, and National Auto/truckstops Incorporated William Osborne Paul KohlerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998

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