Legal Opinion

Interstate Const. Co. v. Lakeview Canal Co.

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1924No. 1113PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Blume, Justice.

This ease involves a “cost-plus” contract, and, like many other contracts of that kind has resulted in trouble. The Interstate Construction Company, plaintiff below and appellant here, is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Colorado, and on April 3, 1920 entered into a contract at Denver, Colorado with the Lakeview Canal Co., respondent herein, whereby the appellant agreed to enlarge and extend the so-called Hammitt canal in Park County, Wyoming, the whole work involving the excavation of approximately 1.68,000 cubic yards. Appellant agreed to complete the…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Browning v. City of WaycrossSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  2. York Manufacturing Co. v. ColleySupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  3. General Railway Signal Co. v. Virginia Ex Rel. State Corporation Comm'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  4. S. R. Smythe Co. v. Ft. Worth Glass & Sand Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1912
  5. S. R. Smythe Co. v. Ft. Worth Glass & Sand Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1912

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Perkins Manufacturing Co. v. Clinton Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
  2. United Pacific Insurance Co. v. Martin & Luther General Contractors, Inc.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1969
  3. State Ex Rel. Eaton v. HirstWyoming Supreme Court · 1938
  4. Creamery Package Mfg. Co. v. Cheyenne Ice Cream Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Louis Ilfeld Co. v. Union Pac. R.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927

2 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