Do-Well MacHine Shop, Inc. v. The United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a valid affirmative defense — that the contractor’s claim is time barred — did not divest the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals of jurisdiction, although it may give rise to a successful motion for summary judgment or dismissal for failure to state a claim
• stating that “[a] dismissal on the merits carries res judicata effect and dismissal for want of jurisdiction does not.”
• finding of the CDA that, “[wjhere Congress did not want the Act altered by parties’ agreements, it said so”
• finding of the CDA that, “[w]here Congress did not want the Act altered by parties’ agreements, it said so”
• \To master this distinction [between dismissal on the merits and dismissal for want of jurisdiction] is not merely an intellectual exercise without practical utility.\
• “To master this distinction [between dismissal on the merits and dismissal for want of jurisdiction] is not merely an intellectual exercise without practical utility.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).