green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
50.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…the contractor must prove that the conditions differed materially from those represented and that the contractor suffered damages as a result.
at p. 1349
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Phillips & Jordan, Incorporated v. United States
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the contractor must prove that the conditions differed materially from those represented and that the contractor suffered damages as a result.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Phillips & Jordan, Incorporated v. United States
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the contractor must prove that the conditions differed materially from those represented and that the contractor suffered damages as a result.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Walsh Construction Company
there cannot be a differing site condition 'unless the contract indicated what that condition would be.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Baum Research & Development Co. v. University of Massachusetts
this court does not impose a lofty standard in its indefiniteness cases
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
CCI, Inc. v. McHugh
(5×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
samplers that extruded from shelby tubes of the soft clayey layer ... exudes between the fingers when squeezed in the fist so this could described as very soft to soft sandy clayey soil.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Skanska USA Civil Southeast, Inc.
(2×)
Corp., 523 F.3d. at 1350.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tpmc-Energysolutions Environmental Services 2008, LLC v. United States
(2×)
Corp. v. Winter, 523 F.3d at 1348 (“[T]he contractor must prove that a reasonable contractor reading the contract documents as a whole would interpret them as making a representation as to the site conditions.” (citing Renda Marine, Inc. v. United States, 509 F.3d at 1376 ; H.B.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Maverick Constructors, LLC
“Determining whether a contract contained indications of a particular site condition is a matter of contract interpretation.” Id. at 1350 (internal citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hahnenkamm, LLC v. United States
Corp. v. Winter, 523 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hahnenkamm, LLC v. United States
Corp. v. Winter, 523 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Marine Industrial Construction, LLC v. United States
(13×)
Corp., 523 F.3d at 1349; see Fehlhaber Corp. v. United States, 151 F. Supp. 817, 825 (Ct. Cl. 1957) (holding it “would have been a virtual impossibility” for plaintiff to discover the condition on its own, so “[p]laintiff had a right to rely on the [g]overnment’s specifications and drawings”); Foster Constr.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. v. United States
Int’l Tech Corp., 523 F.3d at 1348-49.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Meridian Engineering Company v. United States
(3×)
Id. at 1350 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rda Construction Corp. v. United States
Corp., 523 F.3d at 1350 (“[T]his court [has] held that contract documents stating ‘[h]ard material .., may be encountered’ did not represent that only hard material would be encountered.” (quoting Comtrol, 294 F.3d at 1362 )).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tetra Tech Facilities Construction, LLC
International 46 Technology Corp. v. Winter, 523 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Optimum Services, Inc.
International Technology Corp. v. Winter, 523 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
PBS&J Constructors, Inc.
The Federal Circuit has addressed iterations of these criteria in International Technology Corp. v. Winter, 523 F.3d 1341, 1348-49 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Extreme Coatings, Inc. v. United States
According all favorable inferences to plaintiffs allegations of fact, the court cannot decide, at this juncture, whether ECI reasonably interpreted the contract “as making a representation as to the [water levels to be encountered at the dam].” 6 International Technology, 523 F.3d at 1348.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Scott Timber Co. v. United States
(2×)
Corp., 523 F.3d at 1347-48.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Metcalf Construction Co. v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at 1348-49 (internal citations omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United Constructors, LLC v. United States
(4×)
United must further demonstrate that “the actual site conditions were not reasonably foreseeable to the contractor, with the information available ... outside the contract documents, i.e., that the contractor ‘reasonably relied’ on the representations.” Int’l Tech., 523 F.3d at 1349; Renda Marine, 509 F.3d at 1376 (“[T]he contractor must demonstrate that the conditions encountered were not reasonably foreseeable in light of all information available to the contractor when bidding [and] that the contractor reasonably relied upon its original interpretation of the contract....”); F…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
International Technology Corp.
v.
Winter
v.
Winter
2007-1276.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Jul 7, 2008.
Cited by 7 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Federal Circuit (2)
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
July 7, 2008
ERRATA Appeal No. 2007-1276 INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION v. Donald C. Winter, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY Decided: April 18, 2008 Precedential Opinion On Page 15, lines 17-19, delete the sentence “Two samples reported in Table A-8 of the Feasibility Study were designated as ‘CL,’ i.e., they were composed of a majority of clay.” In place of the deleted text, substitute the following:
The same was true of samples described as “CH.” See Exhibit 155, at 3. Some samples described in Tables A-3 and A-4 of the Feasibility Study were designated “CH.”