Legal Opinion

Arundel Corp. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided May 7, 1945No. 45655PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLittleton, Judge

Article 4 of the contract under which plaintiff makes its claim for an increase of 1.73 cents per cubic yard for 1,997,-161 cubic yards of material dredged, over the contract unit price of 34 cents a cubic yard, is set forth in finding 5. The pertinent provisions of the specifications prepared prior to August 4, 1938, with reference to the estimated “quantity of material” to be removed, the “physical data,” and the “character of materials” expected to be encountered are set forth in finding 4. The estimated quantity of materi al which defendant considered would have to be removed to reach the *709…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Arundel Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1942
  2. Tacoma Dredging Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1917

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Spirit Leveling Contractors v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1989
  2. McNamara Construction of Manitoba, Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1975
  3. Tombigbee Constructors v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1970
  4. John Massman Contracting Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1991
  5. Turnkey Enterprises, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1979

7 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