Legal Opinion
Albert J. Jansen, Doing Business as Mercury Service v. The United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided April 16, 1965No. 78-62PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
COWEN, Chief Judge.
This is an action to recover amounts allegedly due plaintiff under two Air Force contracts. The issue presented for our decision is the interpretation of the payment formula included in the contracts. While two separate contracts are in issue, both present the same issue of law and they will be discussed jointly.
On June 18, 1958, plaintiff was awarded contract AF 45 (603)-441 (hereinafter referred to as No. 441), which was an estimated requirements contract to provide the services necessary for the cleaning of C-118 and C-124 type aircraft at McChord Air Force Base,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Stein Bros. Mfg. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1963
- Deloro Smelting and Refining Company, Limited v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1963
- W. H. Edwards Engineering Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1963
- Russell & Pugh Lumber Company v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1961
- Allied Contractors, Inc. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1962
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Max Drill, Inc. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1970
- Astro-Space Laboratories, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1972
- Tecom, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
- Southern Construction Company, Inc. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1966
- California-Pacific Utilities Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1971
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.