Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1974

Raymond International, Inc., a Corporation v. Bookcliff Construction, Inc., a Corporation v. Metropolitan Utilities District, Third Party

Raymond International, Inc., a Corporation v. Bookcliff Construction, Inc., a Corporation v. Metropolitan Utilities District, Third Party
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided February 1, 1974 · Matthes, Heaney, Smith
489 F.2d 732; 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 10262 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Leo Eisenstatt, Eisenstatt, Higgins, Kinnamon & Okun, Omaha, Neb., for defendant-appellant., W. L. Strong, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Metropolitan, Utilities District, Omaha, Neb., for third party defendant-appellee.

Raymond International, Inc., a Corporation v. Bookcliff Construction, Inc., a Corporation v. Metropolitan Utilities District, Third Party

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Raymond International, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, filed this lawsuit against Bookcliff Construction, Inc., a Colorado corporation, seeking to recover the amount due under a construction contract involving a well field water collection system for Metropolitan Utilities District’s (MUD) Platte River Water Treatment Plant. Bookcliff filed a third party complaint against MUD and prayed that judgment be rendered in its favor in any amount adjudged to be due from Bookcliff to plaintiff; and also for damages resulting from flooding of the project which was the subject of the construction contract. The controversy between Raymond International and Bookcliff was settled. The third party claim was tried before the court, which found the issues in favor of MUD and from the ensuing judgment Bookcliff has appealed.

We have considered appellant’s contentions and find them lacking sufficient substance to warrant interference with the district court’s soundly reasoned opinion, which is reported at 347 F. Supp. 208 (D.Neb. 1972).

Accordingly, we affirm.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.