Pratt, 215 Ct. Cl. 987 (Ct. Cl. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Pratt, 215 Ct. Cl. 987 (Ct. Cl. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1982 · …in writing as to why he is being separated and the effective date of the action. ⚠ not in text
15 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Davidson Oil Company v. City of Albuquerque (ca10, 2024-07-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Davidson Oil Company v. City of Albuquerque
10th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
Plaintiff Davidson Oil Company submitted the winning bid, and the parties signed a requirements contract (“Supply Contract”).1 Rather than contracting for a set amount of fuel, Defendant agreed to pay a fixed price for each gallon of diesel and gasoline Defendant ordered from Plaintiff for a 1 A requirements contract is one “in which the purchaser agrees to buy all of its needs of a specified material from a particular supplier, and the supplier agrees, in turn, to fill all of the purchaser’s needs during the period of the contract.” Mason v. United States, 615 F.2d 1343, 1346 (Ct. C…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Rehling v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id.; see also Perlongo v. United States, 215 Ct.Cl. 982, 983 , 566 F.2d 1192 (1977); Greenway v. United States, 163 Ct.Cl. 72, 82 (1963).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sherman W. Pratt
No. 66-77.
United States Court of Claims.
Nov 25, 1977.
215 Ct. Cl. 987
1977 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 101
1977 WL 25916
Sherman W. Pratt, pro se. , Lynn J. Bush, with whom was Assistant Attorney General Barbara Allen Babcock, for defendant.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

"Plaintiff, a former infantryman, served in the Army from 1939 until 1959 when he was retired for longevity under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 3911 (1970). He now claims that, unknown to the Army, he was then suffering from disabled feet and should have been retired for disability. We have the case on cross-motions for summary judgment.

"Plaintiff was offered, but declined, an opportunity to undergo disability examination at the time of his retire[*988] ment. His final service physical examination revealed no problem with his feet. Plaintiff has not shown us that he ever complained of any problem with his feet until 1974, although it may first have been raised in 1971. He did not file suit until 1977. Plaintiffs case is clearly barred by the doctrine of laches. See Devine v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 998 (1975).

"Therefore, upon consideration of the motions and the written and oral arguments of the parties,

"it is ordered that plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied, defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment is granted, and plaintiffs petition-is dismissed.”