This document is a court case between Clifton D. Mayhew, Inc. and Blake Construction Co., Inc. regarding Mayhew's claim for damages. The district court considered Mayhew's claim on the merits following remand from the Fourth Circuit court. The Fourth Circuit agrees with the district court's disposition of the case and affirms the judgment based on the district court judge's memorandum opinion. The court also cites two other cases that are in accordance with their decision.
This document is a court case between Clifton D. Mayhew, Inc. and Blake Construction Co., Inc. regarding Mayhew's claim for damages. The district court considered Mayhew's claim on the merits following remand from the Fourth Circuit court. The Fourth Circuit agrees with the district court's disposition of the case and affirms the judgment based on the district court judge's memorandum opinion. The court also cites two other cases that are in accordance with their decision.
This document is a court case between Clifton D. Mayhew, Inc. and Blake Construction Co., Inc. regarding Mayhew's claim for damages. The district court considered Mayhew's claim on the merits following remand from the Fourth Circuit court. The Fourth Circuit agrees with the district court's disposition of the case and affirms the judgment based on the district court judge's memorandum opinion. The court also cites two other cases that are in accordance with their decision.
v. BLAKE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Appellee. No. 74-1058.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued May 9, 1974. Decided July 24, 1974.
Mark P. Friedlander, Washington, D. C. (Friedlander, Friedlander &
Brooks and Thomas M. Gittings, Jr., Washington, D.C., on brief), for appellant. Jack Rephan, Washington, D.C. (Danzansky, Dickey, Tydings, Quint & Gordon, Washington, D.C., on brief), for appellee. Before BOREMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and WINTER and CRAVEN, Circuit judges. PER CURIAM:
Following remand from this court, Clifton D. Mayhew, Inc. v. Blake
Construction Co., 482 F.2d 1260 (4th Cir. 1973), the district court proceeded to determine Mayhew's claim for damages on its merits. Having fully and carefully considered the briefs, record and oral arguments, we find ourselves in agreement with the district court's disposition of the case, and we affirm the judgment on the basis of the district judge's memorandum opinion. Clifton D. Mayhew, Inc. v. Blake Construction Co., No. 440-72-A (E.D.Va., Nov. 14, 1973). Accord, Merando, Inc. v. United States, 475 F.2d 598 (Ct.Cl.1973); HRH Construction Corp. v. United States, 428 F.2d 1267, 192 Ct.Cl. 912 (1970).
Patrick Demauro v. Central Gulf Ss Corp., and Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee-Appellant v. International Terminal Operating Co., Inc., Third Party, 514 F.2d 403, 2d Cir. (1975)
Edwin R. MacKethan Receiver of the Norfolk Savings and Loan Corporation v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company and Its Individual Partners, Leon C. Hall, Frank F. Warren, A. Page Ware, Jr., Charles H. McCoy Sr., F. Littleton Powell, United Seaboard Bank/seaboard National and Mrs. Daniel M. Thornton, as Executors of the Estate of Daniel M. Thornton, Deceased, Shirley A. Alexander v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company and Its Individual Partners v. Edwin R. MacKethan Receiver of Norfolk Savings and Loan Corporation, and Norfolk Savings and Loan Corporation, Thomas L. Hofheimer, Amicus Curiae, 557 F.2d 395, 4th Cir. (1977)
United States v. Anthony Dilapi, Robert Rao, Sidney Lieberman, Benjamin Ladmer, Stephen Kingston, David Bergner, and Interstate Dress Carriers, Inc., 616 F.2d 613, 2d Cir. (1980)
United States v. Benjamin Barry Kramer, Melvyn Kessler, Samuel Gilbert, Charles Victor Podesta, Jack Jerome Kramer, Michael Gilbert, 864 F.2d 99, 11th Cir. (1988)
United States v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, and Century Indemnity Company, 254 F.2d 836, 2d Cir. (1958)