LEE, TRADING AS VITAMIN PRODUCTS CO.,

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Foster Constr. C. A. & Williams Bros. Co. v. The United States, 435 F.2d 873 (Ct. Cl. 1970)
  …contract and as encountered. Midland Land & Improvement Co. v. United States, 58 Ct.Cl. 671, 683-684 (1923), aff’d 270 U.S. 251, 46 S.Ct. 218, 70 L.Ed. 570 (1926); C. W. Blakeslee & Sons v. United States, 89 Ct.Cl. 226, 250-251 (1939), cert. denied, 309 U.S. 659, 60 S.Ct. 512, 84 L.Ed. 1007 (1940). The claim based upon the modern changed conditions clause is very much different, though it may arise from the same facts and be joined with a claim for misrepresentation. E. g., J. A. Terteling & Sons v. United…
• United States v. Hoffa, 497 F.2d 294 (7th Cir. 1974)
  …on is that their testimony was not material and that they were unnecessarily brought to court, and . . . the fees of such witnesses are not chargeable against the losing party.” United States v. Lee, 107 F. 2d 522, 527 (7th Cir. 1939), cert. denied, 309 U.S. 659, 60 S.Ct. 513, 84 L.Ed. 1008 (1940). This presumption may be rebutted by proving to the trial court that these non-testifying witnesses were, in fact, material and necessary to an issue in the case. Thus, in United States v. Lee, supra, this court…