Legal Opinion
Haberle v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided January 12, 1951No. Civ. Nos. 2318-50, 2317-50, 3146-50, 3487PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McLAUGHLIN, District Judge.
These cases came before the 'Court on motions to dismiss which have been filed by the Government. The grounds for the motions are referred to under the respective captions in which they appear. The cases in which the motions arise are actions brought by the plaintiffs to recover from the defendant under Section 113 of the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, 41 U.S. C.A. 101 et seq.; 58 Stat. 649.
“Sec. 103. Definitions * * * (d) The terms “termination”, “terminate”, and “terminated” refer to the termination or cancellation, in whole or in part, of work under a prime…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Johnson v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1950
3Cited by3 opinions
- Glade Mountain Corp. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1952
- Perfection Oil Company, a Corporation v. Leo Saam and Continental Oil Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1959
- Glade Mountain Corp. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1952