Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Arntz Contracting Co. v. United States

769 F.2d 770

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1985-08-15
Topic
commercial

KASHIWA, Circuit Judge. Arntz Contracting Company, Beacon Construction Company, K.A. Construction Company, and Teaco, Inc., a joint venture (hereinafter Arntz), appeals the decision of the Department of Energy Board of Contract Appeals (Board), No. 187-12-81, 84-3 BCA H 17,604 (1984), in which it held that it had jurisdiction of the appeal under the Contracts Disputes Act of 1978, and in which it denied Arntz any recovery on its claims. Having fully considered the record and the submissions of the parties, we affirm the Board’s decision on the basis of its thorough and well-reasoned opinion. AFFIRMED

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Arntz Contracting Co. v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
ARNTZ CONTRACTING COMPANY v. UNITED STATES,769 F.2d 770(Fed. Cir. 1985)
ARNTZ CONTRACTING COMPANY, BEACON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, K.A. CONSTRUCTION
CO., AND TEACO, INC., A JOINT VENTURE, APPELLANTS, v. THE UNITED STATES,
APPELLEE.
Appeal No. 85-619.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
August 15, 1985.
John W. Rosenberg, Riede, Rosenberg, McCall Cahill, San Rafael, Cal., argued for appellants.

Alvin A. Schall, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director and Thomas W. Petersen, Asst. Director.

Paul W. Lewis, Office of the Gen. Counsel, U.S. Dept. of Energy, of Washington, D.C., of counsel.
Appealed from Energy Board of Contract Appeals.
Before KASHIWA, NEWMAN, and BISSELL, Circuit Judges.
KASHIWA, Circuit Judge.
[1] Arntz Contracting Company, Beacon Construction Company, K.A. Construction Company, and Teaco, Inc., a joint venture (hereinafter Arntz), appeals the decision of the Department of Energy Board of Contract Appeals (Board), No. 187-12-81, 84-3 BCA ¶ 17,604 (1984), in which it held that it had jurisdiction of the appeal under the Contracts Disputes Act of 1978, and in which it denied Arntz any recovery on its claims.

[2] Having fully considered the record and the submissions of the parties, we affirm the Board's decision on the basis of its thorough and well-reasoned opinion.

[3] AFFIRMEDPage 1556