Mendenhall v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that claim for return of all money paid to government under contract was sufficiently certain
• noting that “the CDA simply does not require that this court interpret plaintiffs [claim] letter in a vacuum”
• stating that the contractor’s submission of a written claim to the contracting officer pursuant to § 605(a) is one of the jurisdictional prerequisites for suit in the Court of Federal Claims
• stating that a contracting officer has a “minimum of 60 days within which to respond to a claim, and, therefore, there can be no ‘deemed’ decision prior to 60 days from the date of the claim”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Mendenhall v. United States

9 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Mendenhall v. United States
  D. Nevada· 1982-12-30· cited 2×
• Mendenhall v. United States
  Supreme Court· 2003-10-20
• Mendenhall v. United States
  Ninth Circuit· 1984-05-01
• Mendenhall v. United States
  U.S. Customs Court· 1961-03-15
• Mendenhall v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1979-10-01
• Mendenhall v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1985-01-21
• Mendenhall v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1985-02-19
• Mendenhall v. United States
  Supreme Court· 2003-10-20
• Mendenhall v. United States
  Supreme Court· 2003-10-20