Aragon

Court of Claims

Aragon

529 F.2d 531, 207 Ct. Cl. 1043

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedOctober 24, 1975

DocketNo. 351-74

StatusPublished

This text of 529 F.2d 531 (Aragon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aragon, 529 F.2d 531, 207 Ct. Cl. 1043 (cc 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff alleges that he entered into an oral contract with the Treasury Department for undercover services in the recovery of certain stolen bonds, that he was to receive 10% of the face value of whatever bonds were recovered; and that defendant breached the contract by refusing to pay him the amount due. Defendant denies that there ivas any contract, express or implied. On October 24, 1975 the court issued the following order:

Before SkeltoN, Judge, Presiding, Kasiiiwa and Kuhzig, Judges.

“This case comes before the court on defendant’s motion, hied May 7, 1975, for summary judgment to which plaintiff has filed no response and the time for so responding pursuant to the Rules of the court has expired. Upon consideration thereof, without oral argument, it is concluded on the basis of Rule 101 (f) of the Rules of this court and the decisions in Pacific Far East Line, Inc. v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 378, 513 F. 2d 1355 (1975); Operational Manuals, Inc. v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 854 (1974); Beach v. United States, 226 U.S. 243 (1912); and, Porter v. United States, 204 Ct. Cl. 355, 366, 496 F. 2d 583 (1974), that plaintiff is not entitled to recover.

“it is therefore ordered that defendant’s said motion for summary judgment be and the same is granted and plaintiff’s petition is dismissed.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Plaintiff alleges that he entered into an oral contract with the Treasury Department for undercover services in the recovery of certain stolen bonds, that he was to receive 10% of the face value of whatever bonds were recovered; and that defendant breached the contract by refusing to pay him the amount due. Defendant denies that there ivas any contract, express or implied. On October 24, 1975 the court issued the following order:

Before SkeltoN, Judge, Presiding, Kasiiiwa and Kuhzig, Judges.

“This case comes before the court on defendant’s motion, hied May 7, 1975, for summary judgment to which plaintiff has filed no response and the time for so responding pursuant to the Rules of the court has expired. Upon consideration thereof, without oral argument, it is concluded on the basis of Rule 101 (f) of the Rules of this court and the decisions in Pacific Far East Line, Inc. v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 378, 513 F. 2d 1355 (1975); Operational Manuals, Inc. v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 854 (1974); Beach v. United States, 226 U.S. 243 (1912); and, Porter v. United States, 204 Ct. Cl. 355, 366, 496 F. 2d 583 (1974), that plaintiff is not entitled to recover.

“it is therefore ordered that defendant’s said motion for summary judgment be and the same is granted and plaintiff’s petition is dismissed.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

529 F.2d 531, 207 Ct. Cl. 1043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aragon-cc-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack