Hill Dredging Corp.

Court of Claims

Hill Dredging Corp.

175 Ct. Cl. 883, 1966 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 241, 1966 WL 1535

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedApril 1, 1966

DocketNo. 82-65

StatusPublished

This text of 175 Ct. Cl. 883 (Hill Dredging Corp.) 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

Hill Dredging Corp., 175 Ct. Cl. 883, 1966 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 241, 1966 WL 1535 (cc 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Contracts; disfutes; administrative remedies, exhaustion of. — Plaintiff sues to recover on its contract for dredging work for the Corps of Engineers claiming that it encountered subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site of the Avork which were not anticipated, that its claim for additional costs incurred was denied by the contracting officer, [884]*884and, on appeal, by the Corps of Engineers Board of Contract Appeals. Defendant has moved for summary judgment dismissing the petition on the ground that plaintiff has failed to exhaust its administrative remedy of appeal to the head of the department (the Secretary) in accordance with the Disputes clause of the contract. Upon consideration thereof, together with the opposition thereto, and without oral argument and on the basis of Henry E. Wile Co. v. United States, 144 Ct. Cl. 394, 169 F. Supp. 249 (1959), the court concluded that plaintiff had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and on April 1, 1966, ordered that defendant’s motion be granted and the petition be dismissed.

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

Contracts; disfutes; administrative remedies, exhaustion of. — Plaintiff sues to recover on its contract for dredging work for the Corps of Engineers claiming that it encountered subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site of the Avork which were not anticipated, that its claim for additional costs incurred was denied by the contracting officer, [884]*884and, on appeal, by the Corps of Engineers Board of Contract Appeals. Defendant has moved for summary judgment dismissing the petition on the ground that plaintiff has failed to exhaust its administrative remedy of appeal to the head of the department (the Secretary) in accordance with the Disputes clause of the contract. Upon consideration thereof, together with the opposition thereto, and without oral argument and on the basis of Henry E. Wile Co. v. United States, 144 Ct. Cl. 394, 169 F. Supp. 249 (1959), the court concluded that plaintiff had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and on April 1, 1966, ordered that defendant’s motion be granted and the petition be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 Ct. Cl. 883, 1966 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 241, 1966 WL 1535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-dredging-corp-cc-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack