SCHMOLL, SUCCESSOR ASSIGNEE, ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Nuesse v. Camp, 385 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1967)
  …at trial, failure to take an appeal from an adverse judgment may introduce the element of inadequacy, entitling the interested person to intervene after judgment to file an appeal. Wolpe v. Poretsky, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 141, 144 F. 2d 505, cert. denied 329 U.S. 724, 65 S.Ct. 190, 89 L.Ed. 621 (1944) ; Zuber v. Allen, No. 20,931 (D.C.Cir. July 5, 1967). . 4 J. Mooke, supra note 2, ¶ 24.10, at 60. . The District Court denied intervention on the ground that the “governing rule” was that stated by Judge Kent in…
• Autogiro Co. of Am. v. The United States, 384 F.2d 391 (Ct. Cl. 1967)
  …ct. Hunt and Willett, Inc. v. United States, 351 F. 2d 980, 168 Ct.Cl. 256 (1964). See, also, Societe Anonyme Des Ateliers Brillie Freres v. United States, 160 Ct.Cl. 192 (1963); Schmoll v. United States, 63 F.Supp. 753, 105 Ct.Cl. 415, cert. denied 329 U.S. 724, 67 S.Ct. 69, 91 L.Ed. 627 (1946). For eight of the patents and their claims, defendant has excepted to the trial commissioner’s opinion by only listing the numbers of the findings of fact with which it finds fault. No briefs have been submitted in…
• J. D. Hedin Constr. Co., Inc. v. The United States, 347 F.2d 235 (Ct. Cl. 1965)
  …e & Co., Inc. v. United States, Ct.Cl. No. 252-60, decided January 24, 1964, slip op. p. 4. It is up to this court to determine the extent of the delay for which defendant is responsible. Schmoll v. United States, 63 F.Supp. 753, 759, cert. denied, 329 U.S. 724, 67 S.Ct. 69, 91 L.Ed. 627, 105 Ct.Cl. 415, 458 (1946). However, “[t]he findings of the contracting officer have been said to constitute a strong presumption (James Stewart & Co., Inc. v. United States, 63 F.Supp. 653, 105 Ct.Cl. 284 (1946); Irwin…