Legal Opinion

BMY—Combat Systems Division of Harsco Corp. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided May 23, 1997No. 90-252 CPublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MOODY R. TIDWELL, III, Judge:

Plaintiff filed suit in this court in 1990 seeking an equitable adjustment to its contract with the United States. Defendant asserts counterclaims under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (1994), a special plea in fraud pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2514 (1994), and breach of contract. The court has jurisdiction to entertain this matter pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613 (1994). This opinion follows a trial on liability held in Washington, D.C. from July 8 to July 29, 1996. Quantum was not considered. For the reasons set forth below,…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Grogan v. GarnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Herman & MacLean v. HuddlestonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. United States v. BornsteinSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. United States v. Terence George KellyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1989
  5. Ronald H. Selle v. Barry Gibb, and Ronald H. Selle v. Barry GibbCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Shaw v. AAA Engineering & Drafting, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000
  2. First Federal Savings Bank v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2002
  3. Morse Diesel International, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
  4. United States Ex Rel. Roby v. Boeing Co.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2000
  5. Landmark Land Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2000

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

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

Powered by the Exa API