Aptus Co. v. United States

62 Fed. Cl. 808 | United States Court of Federal Claims | 2004

enforcedCited 1 timesSTANDARDTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration of the court's judgment upholding the government's default termination of the construction contract.

Motions for reconsideration require manifest error of law or mistake of fact.

United States Court of Federal Claims, 2004

Related Cases

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy

2002voided

Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.

Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit

2004enforced

A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.

Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company

1999reversed

The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.

General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.

2001voided

The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.

Green International, Inc. v. Solis

1997modified

No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.

Flameout Design & Fabrication, Inc. v. Pennzoil Caspian Corp.

1999enforced

Summary judgment for defendants was properly granted because Flameout failed to satisfy the statute of frauds for an alleged three-year contract, as the three documents cited did not constitute a signed, enforceable written agreement for the sale of goods.