Bruno New York Industries Corp. v. The United States
United States Court of Claims
1Per curiam
In this contract case, which is to be considered on the record made before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, both parties have moved for summary judgment. These motions were referred to Trial Commissioner William E. Day, under Rule 54(b), for his opinion and recommendation for a conclusion of law. Commissioner Day has submitted an opinion holding for the plaintiff on the first claim of the petition and for the defendant on the second claim. He has recommended that (a) the defendant’s motion should be allowed as to the second claim and the petition dismissed as to that claim, and…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Jones v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1865
- Kaiser Industries Corporation v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965
- Deming v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1865
- C. J. Langenfelder & Son, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965
- Wilson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., a Corporation v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965
- Vallejos v. C. E. Glass Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1978
- Albert J. Jansen, Doing Business as Mercury Service v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965
- Kaminer Construction Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1973
- John McShain, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1967
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.