Legal Opinion

United States v. Bradt

District Court, C.D. California

Decided March 8, 1968No. Civ. No. 66-641-TCPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THURMOND CLARKE, Chief Judge.

This action arises out of a contract under which defendant was to perform custodial services for plaintiff in hospital buildings at March Air Force Base, California.

The Government terminated the agreement because of defendant’s alleged failure to carry out the contract requirements. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held the termination proper, and further determined the Government was entitled to recover reprocurement costs from defendant.

The Government has brought this action for breach of contract, and defendant has counterclaimed…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. S. H. P. Vevelstad, William L. Pape, and Aurora Nickel Company, a Corporation v. E. Miles FlynnCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956
  2. Hills v. EisenhartDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1957
  3. Flynn v. VevelstadDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1954
  4. First Nat. Bank v. Pioneer Laundry & Cleaners, Inc.District Court, D. Alaska · 1952
  5. Monk v. United Life & Accident Ins.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1942

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Jackson v. State of ColoradoDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1968
  2. Baskin v. Tennessee Valley AuthorityDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1974
  3. United States v. BradtDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1968
  4. Gulley v. HurleyDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1969

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

Powered by the Exa API