Maurice Richardson v. State of Arkansas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the government “cannot back out of its contractual promise to pay each Tribe’s full contract support costs”
• noting that Title I’s model contract requires that the agency “demonstrate that its reading is clearly required by the statutory language” (citing 25 U.S.C. § 5329(c))
• rejecting the dissent’s argument as “inconsistent with ordinary principles of Government contracting law”
• agreements dealing with Indian affairs have been construed liberally in favor of establishing Indian rights
• “If a contractor’s right to payment varied based on a future court’s uncertain interpretation of legislative history, it would increase the Government’s cost of contracting.”
• \[w]ithin\ the constraints imposed by an appropriations act, an agency's \ability to direct those funds was committed to agency discretion by law\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).