Legal Opinion

Luff v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided November 6, 1951No. 49392PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWhitaker, Judge

This case is before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the petition fails to show on its face that plaintiffs complied with section 13 of the Contract Settlement Act (58 Stat. 649,660) requiring the *684institution of suit in this court “within ninety days after delivery to him of the findings by the contracting agency.”

After having set out their claim against the defendant, plaintiffs allege: “The plaintiffs have filed their claims aforesaid, and pursued their remedies for the recovery thereof under the provisions of Section 17 of the Contract Settlement…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Peyton v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
  2. Utah Fuel Co. v. National Bituminous Coal Comm'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  3. Peysert v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1906

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. National Cored Forgings Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1953
  2. Pacific Maritime Ass'n v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1953
  3. National Cored Forgings Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1953

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

Powered by the Exa API