Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Torts · MBE-tested
CRAWFORD MFG. CO., Inc. v. UNITED STATES
50 F.2d 280·United States Court of Claims·1931
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
CRAWFORD MFG. CO., Inc. v. UNITED STATES.
No. H-494.
Court of Claims.
June 1, 1931.
George M. Wilmeth, of Washington, D. C. for plaintiff.
Ralph C. Williamson, of Washington, D. C., and Charles B. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Before- BOOTH, Chief Justice, and GREEN, LITTLETON, WILLIAMS, and WHALEY, Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
See Atwater Kent Mfg. Co. v. United States, 62 Ct. Cl. 419; Advance Automobile Accessories Corp. v. United States, 66 Ct. Cl. 304; Borg & Beck Co. v. United States, 67 Ct. Cl. 242; Cuno Engineering Corp. v. United States, 43 F.(2d) 259, 70 Ct. Cl. 384, and Universal Battery Co. v. United States, 281 U. S. 580, 50 S. Ct. 422, 74 L. Ed. 1051.