Legal Opinion
Shotwell v. United States
District Court, E.D. Washington
Decided July 7, 1958No. 1127PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DRIVER, District Judge.
Defendant, United States, has moved for summary judgment. The facts on which the motion must be decided are set out in the amended complaint, two affidavits in support of the motion, and two affidavits in opposition thereto.
Amended Complaint
Plaintiff’s amended complaint may be summarized as follows:
On April 3, 1951, defendant, through its Bureau of Reclamation (hereinafter called the Bureau), Department of the Interior, entered into a contract with J. A. Terteling & Sons, Inc. (hereinafter called Terteling), for the construction of a canal and wasteway in connection…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- United States v. City & County of San FranciscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Engl v. ætna Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
- Frederick Hart & Co. v. Recordgraph CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1948
- Lindsey v. LeavyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1945
- Ritter v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1928
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- United States v. Georgia-Pacific CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1970
- Dovberg v. Dow Chemical Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1961
- Fagan v. Pennsylvania Railroad CompanyDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1959
- Sargeant v. Government of the Virgin IslandsDistrict Court, Virgin Islands · 1973
- Bond Distributing Co. v. Carling Brewing Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1963
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.