Legal Opinion
Fern v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 18, 1954No. 13633PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DENMAN, Chief Judge.
Appellants, Elmer Fern and David Mutchler, appeal from an order of the district court dismissing their second amended complaint on the ground that the cause of action was barred by the Statute of Limitations. The action was brought under Section 13(d) (2) of the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, as amended.1 The original complaint, filed December 27, 1949, alleged that appellants has contracted orally to haul goods by boat for the United States Army, that the Army had cancelled the contract, and that $15,632.41 had been expended in reliance on the contract. This amount,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Ackermann v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Donnelly Garment Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1941
- Kelly v. Delaware River Joint CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1951
- Topping v. FryCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1945
- W. E. Hedger Transp. Corp. v. Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Fort Howard Paper Company, Cross-Appellant v. Standard Havens, Inc. And Continental Casualty Company, Cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1990
- United States v. Frank H. Molitor, Frank H. Molitor v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- Cline v. Fountain Rock Lime & Brick Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1957
- Bilmar Drilling, Inc. v. Ifg Leasing Co., Bilmar Drilling, Inc. v. Ifg Leasing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986
- Wimes v. Eaton Corp.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1983
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.