Legal Opinion
Daff v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided August 15, 1994No. Nos. 90-3952C, 90-3958CPublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRUGGINK, Judge.
This is an action brought pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613 (1988) (“CDA”). On May 9, 1988, the Contracting Officer (“CO”) terminated the contract at issue for default because of alleged fraud on the part of Triad Microsystems, Inc., the contractor. On January 3,1990, the CO entered a second final decision, this time demanding return of unliquidated progress *686payments. In its appeal, Triad1 seeks to have those decisions set aside. Defendant has counterclaimed to recover on its claim for unliquidated progress payments as a remedy for fraudulent…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Dawco Construction, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
- United States v. Acme Process Equipment Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
- WRB Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1968
- Joseph Morton Co., Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. The United States, Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Martin J. Simko Construction, Inc. v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- United States ex rel. Wuestenhoefer v. JeffersonDistrict Court, N.D. Mississippi · 2015
- Charles W. Daff, Trustee in Bankruptcy for Triad Microsystems, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- Driggs Corp. v. Maryland Aviation AdministrationCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1998
- Pacetti v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2001
- San Francisco Unified School District Ex Rel. Contreras v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2010
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.