Riverside Research Institute v. The United States
This text of 877 F.2d 952 (Riverside Research Institute v. The United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
877 F.2d 952
35 Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) 75,576
RIVERSIDE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, Appellant,
v.
The UNITED STATES, Appellee.
No. 87-1442.
United States Court of Appeals,
Federal Circuit.
Feb. 23, 1989.
Appealed from Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.
Richard M. Sharfman, of Sharfman, Shanman, Poret & Siviglia, New York City, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was James A. Shanman, of Sharfman, Shanman, Poret & Siviglia, New York City. Of counsel was Raymond S.E. Pushkar, of McKenna, Conner & Cuneo, Washington, D.C.
James M. Kinsella, of the Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were James M. Spears, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director and Thomas W. Peterson, Asst. Director.
Prior report: (Fed.1988) 860 F.2d 420.
Before ARCHER, MAYER and MICHEL, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
ARCHER, Circuit Judge.
The Petition for Rehearing is granted.
The judgment is modified to remand the case to the Board to determine the costs incurred and paid by Warwick to construct the leasehold improvements on Riverside's lease at the Newmark location.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
877 F.2d 952, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 3189, 1989 WL 66406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riverside-research-institute-v-the-united-states-cafc-1989.