Ricky Lewis Neal 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 government could not recover under TINA even though billings were \calculated on the basis of the 115% markup for overhead\ and the court \[a]ccept[ed] as correct that Universal's overhead rate was in fact lower than 115%\
• the key finding of rebuttal was the fact that Universal's history of negotiating showed that it would not accept less than 115% markup for overhead and therefore no contract would have been signed
• the key finding of rebuttal was the fact that Universal’s history of negotiating showed that it would not accept less than 115% markup for overhead and therefore no contract would have been signed
• “If Universal would accept no less ... there would have been no contract, not a contract at a lower price. The conclusion is inescapable that [the defective data] ... did not affect the agreed-upon contract price.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).