Legal Opinion
Micrecord Corporation v. The United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided June 10, 1966No. 245-59PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
COWEN, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff, an Illinois corporation engaged in the microfilming business, seeks to recover certain sums alleged to have been lost in performing a contract for the microfilming of obsolete engineering documents for the Air Force.
On September 17, 1954, the Wright Air Development Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, sent letters to a number of commercial microfilming companies, including plaintiff, requesting the submission of non-obligating estimates for the microfilming of some 750,000 old engineering drawings of various sizes. To assist prospective bidders…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Wunderlich Contracting Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965
- J. D. Hedin Construction Company, Inc., for Its Own Use and for the Use of Fischbach & Moore, Its Sub-Contractor v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965
- Commerce International Company, Inc. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1964
- Albert J. Jansen, Doing Business as Mercury Service v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965
- Davis v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1964
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Pacific Far East Line, Inc. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1968
- The Franklin Company v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1967
- D & L Construction Co. & Associates v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1968
- International Graphics, Division of Moore Business Forms, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1984
- Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corporation, a Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Armour and Company, and Armour and Company v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1970
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.