MATANUSKA VALLEY LINES, INC.

v.

MOLITOR

Citator

Cited By (21 total)

• Sundstrand Turbo v. The United States, 389 F.2d 406 (Ct. Cl. 1968)
  …by an independent excursion along the administrative trail. See Jefferson Constr. Co. v. United States, supra, at 589, 368 F. 2d 247; Jefferson Constr. Co. of Florida v. United States, 364 F. 2d 420, 424, 176 Ct. Cl. 1363, 1369 (1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 914, 87 S.Ct. 865, 17 L.Ed.2d 786 (1967); Midwest Spray & Coating Co. v. United States, 176 Ct.Cl. 1331, 1338 (1966). That the determination of this claim should not be disturbed is reinforced by the contract provisions themselves. 10. TERMINATION *…
• Fenix v. Finch, 436 F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1971)
  …a matter of fact, since this computation was not presented to the district court and there is no record evidence concerning it, this issue is not properly before this court. See Ford v. Boeger, 362 F. 2d 999, 1006-1007 (8th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 914, 87 S.Ct. 857, 17 L.Ed.2d 787 (1967); Kern v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 293 F. 2d 251, 259 (8th Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 969, 82 S.Ct. 443, 7 L.Ed.2d 397 (1962). This case has been in litigation in the courts since 1962 and we find…
• Boyajian v. The United States, 423 F.2d 1231 (Ct. Cl. 1970)
  …o make the test. Where a conflict is obvious, and certainly where the contractor actually is cognizant of it, he must make appropriate inquiry. Jefferson Construction Co. of Fla. v. United States, 364 F. 2d 420, 176 Ct.Cl. 1363 (1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 914, 87 S.Ct. 865, 17 L.Ed.2d 786 (1967); Jefferson Construction Co. v. United States, 151 Ct.Cl. 75 (1960).29 The Storage Claim As above pointed out, Paragraph (d) of Part II of the Schedule specifically provided that “[p] ending approval of the said…