Legal Opinion

Klebe v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided March 20, 1922No. 34638PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, Chief Justice

The question for decision is whether from the facts there arises the implication- of a contract, by which the Government agreed to pay $5,000, the value of the shovel, as for a taking of the property of plaintiffs for public use.

The law upn the subject is well settled. In a late case the Supreme Court of the United States, in an opinion by Mr. Justice McKenna have said: “It is to be remembered that to bind the Government there must be implication of a contract to pay, but the circumstances may rebut that implication.” John Horstmann Co. case, 257 U., S. 138. And in the Tempel case, 248 U. S.…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Schillinger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  2. United States v. North American Transportation & Trading Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1920
  3. Langford v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  4. United States v. Great Falls Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
  5. Tempel v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1918

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Marathon Oil Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1989
  2. Janowsky v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1991
  3. Allenfield Associates v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1998
  4. Remington Rand Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1954
  5. Algonac Manufacturing Company v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1970

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

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

Powered by the Exa API