H. E. Crook Co. v. United States
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sofarelli Bros. v. Elgin (4th Cir. 1942)
- Hirsch v. United States (Court of Claims 1941)
- Sobel v. United States (Court of Claims 1938)
- Phoenix Bridge Co. v. United States (Court of Claims 1937)
- Levering & Garrigues Co. v. United States (Court of Claims 1932)
- Steel Products Engineering Co. v. United States (Court of Claims 1931)
- Levering & Garrigues Co. v. United States (Court of Claims 1931)
- McCloskey ex rel. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States (Court of Claims 1928)
- Goldstone v. United States (Court of Claims 1925)
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 of the Court
The facts in this case are fully set out in the findings, and it is not necessary to recapitulate them here. The plaintiff commenced work under the contract, and was delayed 412 days by the defendant in its performance. It thereby incurred losses and expenses amounting to the sum of $11,894.07. These facts are not disputed.
The law governing- such cases is well established, and has been repeatedly asserted by this court and by the Supreme Court of the United States. Kelly & Kelly v. United States, 31 C. Cls. 361; William Cramp & Sons v. United States, 41 C. Cls. 164; Muller v. United States, 113 U. S. 153; United States v. Smith, 94 U. S. 214.
Judgment for plaintiff under Finding IV for the sum of $11,849.07.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.