Sugg v. Burgess

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 Contracting Officer’s disallowance of $8,149,888.00 was improper, because that amount was allowable under the FAR as IR & D and Production Equipment costs
• “The significant contracts that will receive an allocation of costs, which therefore govern the dispute, are NAS8-38100, PB10E9900N, F42610-94-C0031, and DAA001-95-C0016.”
• “[T]he court has determined that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiffs claims in this case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).