C. H. Leavell & Co.

Court of Claims

C. H. Leavell & Co.

546 F.2d 430, 23 Cont. Cas. Fed. 81,120, 211 Ct. Cl. 308, 1976 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 172

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedSeptember 10, 1976

DocketNo. 175-75

StatusPublished

This text of 546 F.2d 430 (C. H. Leavell & 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

C. H. Leavell & Co., 546 F.2d 430, 23 Cont. Cas. Fed. 81,120, 211 Ct. Cl. 308, 1976 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 172 (cc 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

C ontraots; interpretation; ambiguity; necessity for seehi/ng clarification; soil logs; subsurface conditions. — Plaintiff seeks review under Wunderlich Act standards of a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (reported at 74-2 BCA para. 10885 and, on reconsideration, at 75-1 BCA para. 11048) dismissing plaintiff’s belated appeal requesting an equitable adjustment for additional expenses allegedly incurred due to unexpected amount of water seepage into the foundation borings for barracks buildings at Lackland Air Force Base during excavating and construction, even though the Government-furnished data concerning underground water was conflicting, because plaintiff failed to seek additional information concerning the conflicts. On June 9, 1976 Trial Judge C. Murray Bernhardt filed a recommended decision (reported in full at 22 CCF para. 80334) concluding that the Board correctly dismissed plaintiff’s appeal. On 'September 10, 1976 the court, by order, adopted said recommended decision as the basis for its judgment in this case, concluded that plaintiff is not entitled to recover, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granted defendant’s cross-motion and dismissed the petition.

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

C ontraots; interpretation; ambiguity; necessity for seehi/ng clarification; soil logs; subsurface conditions. — Plaintiff seeks review under Wunderlich Act standards of a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (reported at 74-2 BCA para. 10885 and, on reconsideration, at 75-1 BCA para. 11048) dismissing plaintiff’s belated appeal requesting an equitable adjustment for additional expenses allegedly incurred due to unexpected amount of water seepage into the foundation borings for barracks buildings at Lackland Air Force Base during excavating and construction, even though the Government-furnished data concerning underground water was conflicting, because plaintiff failed to seek additional information concerning the conflicts. On June 9, 1976 Trial Judge C. Murray Bernhardt filed a recommended decision (reported in full at 22 CCF para. 80334) concluding that the Board correctly dismissed plaintiff’s appeal. On 'September 10, 1976 the court, by order, adopted said recommended decision as the basis for its judgment in this case, concluded that plaintiff is not entitled to recover, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granted defendant’s cross-motion and dismissed the petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 F.2d 430, 23 Cont. Cas. Fed. 81,120, 211 Ct. Cl. 308, 1976 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/c-h-leavell-co-cc-1976.