Legal Opinion

United States ex rel. Tungsten Reef Mines Co. v. Ickes

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Decided May 11, 1936No. 6554PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GRONER, Associate Justice.

A statement of the facts in chronological order will be helpful to an understanding of the question involved in this case. In May, 1919, appellant, whom we shall hereafter call Tungsten, filed its claim with the Department of the Interior for losses sustained in producing or preparing *258to produce tungsten ore under government stimulation as provided in the War Minerals Relief Act of March 2, 1919 (40 Stat. 1272 [50 U.S.C.A. § 80 note]). Tungsten’s claim as filed was expressly confined to items for overhead and expense of making test runs from the time of starting to…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. United States v. MayerSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  2. Swift & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  3. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. WillardSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  4. Phillips v. NegleySupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  5. Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1920

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. 1425 F Street Corp. v. JardinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1947
  2. Fishel v. KiteCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938
  3. Nebraska Public Power District v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
  4. Fogarty v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1948
  5. Albert v. BrownellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1954

3 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