Ardelt-Horn Construction Co.

Court of Claims

Ardelt-Horn Construction Co.

521 F.2d 1406, 21 Cont. Cas. Fed. 84,096, 207 Ct. Cl. 995, 1975 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 257

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJune 27, 1975

DocketNo. 166-73

StatusPublished

This text of 521 F.2d 1406 (Ardelt-Horn Construction Co.) 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

Ardelt-Horn Construction Co., 521 F.2d 1406, 21 Cont. Cas. Fed. 84,096, 207 Ct. Cl. 995, 1975 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 257 (cc 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

On November 8,1974 Trial Judge C. Murray Bernhardt filed a recommended decision (reported in full at 21 CCF para. 84096) in the above-identified case, in which plaintiff whose contract was default terminated seeks review of the decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (73-1BCA para. 9901). The trial judge concluded that the Board’s decision as to each of the separate items of claim by plaintiff is not arbitrary, capricious and is supported by substantial evidence, except that the Board decision of a time extension of 10 days for excusable delay is not supported by substantial evidence, whereas a more plausible computation is 16 days. This case came before the court (CoweN, Chief Judge, Dureee, Senior Judge and SkeltoN, Judge) on plaintiff’s request for review and defendant’s request for partial review of the recommended decision, on the parties’ motions for summary judgment, having been submitted on the briefs and oral argument of counsel. Since the court agrees with the recommended decision, on June 27, 1975 the court affirmed and adopted the decision as the basis for its judgment in this case, concluded that the default termination was justified and dismissed the petition.

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

On November 8,1974 Trial Judge C. Murray Bernhardt filed a recommended decision (reported in full at 21 CCF para. 84096) in the above-identified case, in which plaintiff whose contract was default terminated seeks review of the decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (73-1BCA para. 9901). The trial judge concluded that the Board’s decision as to each of the separate items of claim by plaintiff is not arbitrary, capricious and is supported by substantial evidence, except that the Board decision of a time extension of 10 days for excusable delay is not supported by substantial evidence, whereas a more plausible computation is 16 days. This case came before the court (CoweN, Chief Judge, Dureee, Senior Judge and SkeltoN, Judge) on plaintiff’s request for review and defendant’s request for partial review of the recommended decision, on the parties’ motions for summary judgment, having been submitted on the briefs and oral argument of counsel. Since the court agrees with the recommended decision, on June 27, 1975 the court affirmed and adopted the decision as the basis for its judgment in this case, concluded that the default termination was justified and dismissed the petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

521 F.2d 1406, 21 Cont. Cas. Fed. 84,096, 207 Ct. Cl. 995, 1975 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ardelt-horn-construction-co-cc-1975.