Legal Opinion
Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.
District Court, S.D. California
Decided February 20, 1952No. Civ. No. 11816PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JAMES M. CARTER, District Judge.
The issue raised here is, “Whether or not a prime War Contractor, aggrieved of the findings of the contracting agency on his claim which had been filed pursuant to the war Contract Settlement Act of 1944, 41 U.S.C.A. §§ 101-125, is entitled to a jury trial when he seeks relief under Section 13(b) (2), 41 U.S.C.A. § 113(b) (2), of the Act?”
The facts of the present case are found in two former opinions, Monolith Portland Mid. Co. v. R. F. C, 9 Cir., 1949; 178 F.2d 854, and Monolith Portland Mid. Co. v. R. F. C., 9 Cir., 1951, 95 F.Supp. 570.
Since the Act is…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Bauman v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Dohany v. RogersSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. York & Whitney Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Maguire v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- United States v. PfitschSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 1955
- Monolith Portland Midwest Company, a Corporation v. Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957
- Tucson Airport Authority v. General Dynamics Corp.District Court, D. Arizona · 1996