Legal Opinion

Suwannee River Finance, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided March 26, 1985No. 652-83CPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs sue for construction-differential subsidy payments 1 in the amount of $1,339,682 for changes made in the construction of three ships. The Maritime Administration (MarAd) denied such payments pursuant to a directive that stopped all subsidies for non-essential changes.

Facts

The Merchant Marine Act of 1936, 46 U.S.C. §§ 1101-1295g (1982), was enacted to foster the development of the merchant marine and ship construction industry. Pursuant to the Act, MarAd is responsible for maintaining a large, well-equipped and efficient domestic merchant fleet. See…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Emeco Industries, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1973
  2. Jackson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1978
  3. Yosemite Park & Curry Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1978
  4. Dana Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1972
  5. Bishop Engineering Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1967

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. G & H Machinery Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1989
  2. Square One Armoring Services Company v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API