SLACK BROS., INC.

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

Citator

Cited By

• The Len Co. & Assocs. v. The United States, 385 F.2d 438 (Ct. Cl. 1967)
  …) ; Lovell v. United States, 61 Ct.Cl. 756, 761-762 (1926) ; Griffiths v. United States, 74 Ct.Cl. 245, 256-257 (1932) ; Pope v. United States, 76 Ct.Cl. 64, 96-99 (1932) ; Globe Indemnity Co. v. United States, 102 Ct.Cl. 21, 35 (1944), cert. denied 324 U.S. 852, 65 S.Ct. 712, 89 L.Ed. 1412 (1945). . This excerpt is from the General Provisions for Construction Contracts, Standard Form 23A, March 1953 ed., printed in 41 C.F.R. § 1-16.901-23A (1961). The corresponding language of the April 1961 and June 19…
• Parker v. The United States, 573 F.2d 42 (Ct. Cl. 1978)
  …ettlement agreement itself made no specific allocation of the proceeds, the court unfortunately is deprived of the usual guidelines for determining a reasonable allocation. Cf. Tree v. United States, 55 F.Supp. 438, 102 Ct.Cl. 128 (1944), cert. den. 324 U.S. 852, 65 S.Ct. 713, 89 L.Ed. 1412 (1945) where this court closely examined the terms of a more precise settlement agreement in applying the “in-lieu-of-what” test. In the Fourth Cause of Action set forth in their cross-complaint, as amended, Marilyn and…
• Gen. Bronze Corp. v. The United States, 338 F.2d 117 (Ct. Cl. 1964)
  …e by the contractor on the order of defendant’s representatives in charge of the work, but refuses to pay for it because the contract requirements were not complied with.” Globe Indemnity Co. v. United States, 102 Ct.Cl. 21, 35 (1944), cert. denied, 324 U.S. 852, 65 S.Ct. 712, 89 L.Ed. 1412 (1945). Because the additional work did not have the written approval of the department head, as required by the contract, this court held, albeit reluctantly, that the contractor [*124] could not recover, saying at 102…