{"count":196706,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz00OS4zMzk2NzYmcz00NjQxNjE4JnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMDktMjMmcD0y&q=CONSTRUCTION+OF+ASSIGNMENT+CONSTRUCTION+AND+INTERPRETATION&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6470421/centerplan-construction-co-llc-v-hartford/","attorney":"","caseName":"Centerplan Construction Co., LLC v. Hartford","caseNameFull":"","citation":["343 Conn. 368"],"citeCount":12,"cluster_id":6470421,"court":"Supreme Court of Connecticut","court_citation_string":"Conn.","court_id":"conn","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-05-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC20526","docket_id":63325401,"judge":"Robinson; D’Auria; Kahn; Ecker; Suarez","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-04-01T02:57:34.556555Z","date_created":"2022-05-20T12:01:33.685170Z","score":{"bm25":95.37177}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":11297776,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/05/24/centerplan_construction_co._llc_v._hartford_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-04-01T03:56:02.447705Z","date_created":"2026-04-01T02:49:37.357284Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"75cf0fbbe451e286576f24f4bf4a745335c421cb","snippet":"      CENTERPLAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,\n         LLC, ET AL. v. CITY OF HARTFORD\n                     (SC 20526)\n        Robinson, C. J., and D’Auria, Kahn, Ecker and Suarez, Js.\n\n                                  Syllabus\n\nThe plaintiffs, C Co. and D Co., which had contracted with the defendant,\n   the city of Hartford, to construct a baseball stadium, appealed from the\n   judgment of the trial court in favor of the city. The city had entered\n   into an agreement with an architectural firm, P Co","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR343/343CR77.pdf","id":6342532,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/05/24/centerplan_construction_co._llc_v._hartford.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-11T18:44:19.044897Z","date_created":"2022-05-20T12:01:33.736123Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"fe7acb42f55a290127a42bfe25912d7f40abdf25","snippet":"***********************************************\n    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-\nginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-\nlished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was\nreleased as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-\nginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions\nand petitions for certification is the “officially released”\ndate appearing in the opinion.\n\n   All opinions are subject to modification and technical\ncorr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"Action to recover damages for, inter alia, breach of contract, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford and transferred to the Complex Litigation Docket; thereafter, the defen- dant filed a counterclaim; subsequently, the court, Mou- kawsher, J., granted the defendant's motions to add Centerplan Development Company, LLC, et al. as third- party counterclaim defendants and the plaintiffs' motion to implead Pendulum Studio II, LLC, et al. as third-party defendants; thereafter, the defendant withdrew the counterclaim as to third-party counterclaim defendant Leyland Alliance, LLC, et al.; subsequently, the court 372 MAY, 2022 343 Conn. 368 Centerplan Construction Co., LLC v. Hartford granted in part the defendant's motion to preclude cer- tain evidence and the case was tried to the jury before Moukawsher, J.; verdict and judgment in part for the defendant, from which the plaintiffs and third-party counterclaim defendant Centerplan Development Com- pany, LLC, et al. appealed to the Appellate Court; there- after, the court, Moukawsher, J., denied the plaintiffs' motion for remittitur and ordered the discharge of notices of lis pendens on certain of the defendant's real properties, and the plaintiffs and third-party counter- claim defendant Centerplan Development Company, LLC, et al. filed an amended appeal; subsequently, the appeal was transferred to this court. Reversed; new trial. Louis R. Pepe, with whom was Laura W. Ray, for the appellants (plaintiffs and third-party counterclaim defendant Centerplan Development Company, LLC, et al.). Leslie P. King, with whom, on the brief, were Sylvia H. Walbolt, pro hac vice, James E. Parker-Flynn, pro hac vice, and Ryan D. Class, for the appellee (defen- dant).","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11297776,6342532],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The plaintiffs, C Co. and D Co., which had contracted with the defendant, the city of Hartford, to construct a baseball stadium, appealed from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the city. The city had entered into an agreement with an architectural firm, P Co., to design the stadium. After P Co. began work, the city, in February, 2015, entered into a development agreement with D Co. whereby D Co. would serve as the developer and administer and complete P Co.'s plans. In turn, C Co. and D Co. entered into a builder agreement with each other, and they both entered into a direct agreement with the city. In May, 2015, the city assigned its agreement with P Co. to C Co. and D Co. In December, 2015, a dispute arose between the parties. C Co. and D Co. claimed that they had never been given control over P Co. or its design of the stadium, 343 Conn. 368 MAY, 2022 369 Centerplan Construction Co., LLC v. Hartford and that the scope of the project had increased because of design changes made by the city and the team that would be occupying the stadium. The city and D Co. resolved the dispute in January, 2016, by executing a term sheet that increased the budget for the project and extended the substantial completion deadline from March 11 to May 17, 2016. The term sheet, which C Co. did not sign, also prevented changes to the project without the city's consent and modified the liquidated damages provision in the city's agreement with D Co. After C Co. and D Co. failed to meet the extended substantial completion deadline, the city terminated its contractual relationship with C Co. and D Co. on the grounds that C Co. and/or D Co. had failed to construct the ballpark in a workmanlike manner and to pay the city liquidated damages that had accrued since their failure to substantially complete the project. C Co. and D Co. thereafter brought the present action against the city, claiming that the city had breached its contracts with them by failing to provide them with notice and an opportunity to cure the alleged defaults before terminating their contractual relationship. The city filed a counterclaim, alleging breach of contract against C Co. and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against C Co. and D Co. Prior to trial, and in response to various motions filed by the parties, the trial court determined that the city's contracts with C Co., D Co., and P Co. granted the city the right to approve the architectural plans and changes to them but granted C Co. and D Co. the right to control how the plans were carried out, including control over P Co. and responsibility for P Co.'s errors and omissions. The court further determined that the city's agreement with D Co. vested the city with the right of commercially reasonable approval over the project plans but that it was the parties' intention that D Co. would have complete control over the stadium design and construction. With respect to the assignment of the city's agreement with P Co. to C Co. and D Co., the court determined that C Co. and D Co. were able to present evidence at trial only as to the city's interference with their legal control over P Co. and the stadium's design after the term sheet was executed. The court instructed the jury that the only issue for it to decide was who was to blame for the stadium's not being ready by the May 17, 2016 deadline. The jury found C Co. and D Co. responsible for failing to complete the stadium by the contractually agreed on deadline, returned a verdict against C Co. and D Co. on their breach of contract claim against the city, and awarded the city $335,000 in liquidated damages in connection with its counterclaim. The trial court rendered judgment for the city, and C Co. and D Co. appealed. Held: 1. D Co. did not waive its right to contest errors by the city that occurred prior to the execution of the term sheet, including any architectural or design errors over which the city previously had control; accordingly, the trial court improperly precluded D Co. from presenting evidence of such errors and pursuing the claims against the city that it was entitled to pursue under the term sheet. 370 MAY, 2022 343 Conn. 368 Centerplan Construction Co., LLC v. Hartford 2. The parties plainly and unambiguously provided in their agreements that, until the city assigned the agreement that it had with P Co. to C Co. and D Co., the city maintained legal control of and responsibility for P Co.'s work, including any errors or omissions that occurred between February and May, 2015; the city's assignment of its agreement with P Co. in May, 2015, to C Co. and D Co. would have been superfluous if C Co. and D Co. already had legal control of and responsibility for P Co.'s work prior to that assignment, and the assignment's recitals comported with the understanding that it was the parties' intent that there would be a subsequent assignment to C Co. and D Co. of the agreement between the city and P Co. 3. The clear language of the city's assignment of its agreement with P Co. to C Co. and D Co. plainly and unambiguously provided that C Co. and D Co. had legal control of and responsibility for P Co. and the stadium design upon the execution of that assignment in May, 2015, until January, 2016, when the term sheet was executed, including responsibility for any design errors committed during that time period; contrary to the trial court's determination, however, the assignment's plain and unam- biguous language established that the city retained all obligations as to P Co. arising out of P Co.'s services before the assignment in May, 2015, including responsibility for any of P Co.'s errors or omissions before May, 2015. 4. This court determined that it was unclear under the term sheet whether the city, on the one hand, or C Co. and D Co., on the other, had control of P Co. and the stadium design after the execution of the term sheet in January, 2016, until June, 2016, when the city terminated its contractual relationship with C Co. and D Co.; accordingly, that issue was to be determined by the fact finder on remand. 5. The term sheet did not unambiguously divest C Co. of the right, in its agreement with D Co., to notice and an opportunity to cure any default prior to termination, the issue of whether the city improperly failed to provide C Co. with the required notice and cure period was a question of fact for the fact finder, and the city and C Co. should have been permitted to introduce evidence regarding whether the city gave C Co. notice and an opportunity to cure prior to terminating their contrac- tual relationship: a. Although the city gained the right under the term sheet to remove C Co., without first terminating D Co., in the event that C Co. failed to meet the substantial completion deadline, the term sheet was ambiguous as to whether the right to remove C Co. was a newly created, unqualified right or involved the assignment to the city of D Co.'s preexisting right that D Co. had under its agreement with C Co.; however, under either interpretation of the term sheet, C Co. had an implied common-law right or a contractual right to notice and an opportunity to cure, as the term sheet did not unambiguously divest C Co. of such a right, and, accord- ingly, the trial court incorrectly determined that the term sheet did not 343 Conn. 368 MAY, 2022 371 Centerplan Construction Co., LLC v. Hartford require the city to provide C Co. with notice and an opportunity to cure prior to termination. b. The city could not prevail on its claim that, even if C Co. had been given an opportunity to cure, it could not establish that it would have achieved substantial completion of the project within the allotted cure period, as it was the city's burden, rather than that of C Co., to demon- strate that providing an opportunity to cure would have been futile or that C Co.'s breach was incurable; because the trial court's ruling with respect to this issue was improper and the court did not present the issue to the jury, the parties were prevented from developing the record, and the case was remanded for further development of the record and a determination by the fact finder with respect to that issue. c. The record was inadequate to determine whether C Co. ratified the term sheet, as the trial court made no preliminary finding of fact regarding ratification, and, thus, the parties did not have the opportunity to offer evidence on this issue, but the issue of whether C Co. ratified the term sheet must be addressed on remand only if the fact finder determines that the term sheet granted the city a newly created right to terminate C Co. for failing to meet the substantial completion deadline; accordingly, on remand, the fact finder must first determine whether the term sheet granted the city that newly created right or assigned to the city a preex- isting right under D Co.'s agreement with C Co., and, if it determines that the term sheet granted the city a newly created right, it then must determine whether C Co. ratified the term sheet; moreover, if the fact finder determines that C Co. did ratify the term sheet, which C Co. would have to have done to consent to its requirements, the scope of the trial on remand would be limited to claims that arose after the execution of the term sheet in January, 2016. Argued April 26, 2021—officially released May 24, 2022"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9471989/kunj-construction-corporation/","attorney":"","caseName":"KUNJ Construction Corporation","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9471989,"court":"Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals","court_citation_string":"A.S.B.C.A.","court_id":"asbca","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-01-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"63240","docket_id":68222752,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:24:35.780254Z","date_created":"2024-02-05T15:00:49.447827Z","score":{"bm25":57.02447}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[107691,111719,177003,266916,483919,777648,6648027,6649379,6657849],"download_url":"http://www.asbca.mil/Decisions/2024/63240%20KUNJ%20Construction%20Corporation%201.25.24%20Decision.pdf","id":9929827,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/01/25/kunj_construction_corporation.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T23:16:02.948377Z","date_created":"2024-02-05T15:00:49.450208Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"57ae441419ae981b6c636684422c68a3d7fd91d9","snippet":"               ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS\n Appeal of -                                   )\n                                               )\n KUNJ Construction Corporation                 )     ASBCA No. 63240\n                                               )\n Under Contract No. N40085-16-D-0302           )\n\n APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:                      Matthew T. Schoonover, Esq.\n                                                     John M. Mattox II, Esq.\n                    ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9929827],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9442252/korte-construction-company/","attorney":"","caseName":"Korte Construction Company","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9442252,"court":"Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals","court_citation_string":"A.S.B.C.A.","court_id":"asbca","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-10-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"63148","docket_id":68019482,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:17:34.819266Z","date_created":"2023-11-18T22:00:19.475287Z","score":{"bm25":55.89184}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[296657,483919,601883,748869,778387,782703,4256267,4554333,6646629,8592906,8593001,8595593,8595796,8597879,9423704,9430599,9491610,9497050],"download_url":"http://www.asbca.mil/Decisions/2023/63148%20Korte%20Construction%20Company%2010.26.23%20Decision.pdf","id":9900077,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/10/26/korte_construction_company.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-29T06:44:21.519130Z","date_created":"2023-11-18T22:00:19.477642Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0ec1f0dedd216809db52ac1a295983236ae42b4c","snippet":"                  ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS\n    Appeal of -                                )\n                                               )\n    Korte Construction Company                 )   ASBCA No. 63148\n                                               )\n    Under Contract No. W912BV-19-C-0017        )\n\n    APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:                  Michael E. Wilson, Esq.\n                                                    Greenfelder, Hemker & Gale, P.C.\n                 ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9900077],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8436800/phylway-construction-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Phylway Construction, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8436800,"court":"Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals","court_citation_string":"A.S.B.C.A.","court_id":"asbca","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-10-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"ASBCA No. 62961","docket_id":65651776,"judge":"D'Alessandris","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T19:12:00.693797Z","date_created":"2022-11-01T16:00:12.118161Z","score":{"bm25":54.87172}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[111719,111722,177003,274416,288380,438982,483919,654648,779646],"download_url":"http://www.asbca.mil/Decisions/2022/62961%20Phylway%20Construction,%20LLC%2010.11.22%20Decision.pdf","id":8407142,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/10/11/phylway_construction_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T02:24:54.543828Z","date_created":"2022-11-01T16:00:12.129777Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ddcb931236f05e27708107ad672659fade7f047c","snippet":"               ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS\n Appeal of -                                  )\n                                              )\n Phylway Construction, LLC                    )    ASBCA No. 62961\n                                              )\n Under Contract No. W912P8-19-C-0015          )\n\n APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:                    Brian S. Wood, Esq.\n                                                   Jacob W. Scott, Esq.\n                                         ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8407142],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10601559/a4-construction-company-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"A4 Construction Company, Inc","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10601559,"court":"Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals","court_citation_string":"A.S.B.C.A.","court_id":"asbca","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-05-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"63252, 63456, 63626, 63961","docket_id":70498367,"judge":"Taylor","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-06-11T04:57:11.363157Z","date_created":"2025-06-10T15:00:36.268309Z","score":{"bm25":54.617744}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[754,106395,177003,414330,433650,438982,482620,483919,727404,776728,777648,782074,782703,785406,8595176,8595547,9430599,9440753,9474141,9477718],"download_url":"https://www.asbca.mil/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=0oSkyZ5hCEU%3d&portalid=143","id":11068147,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/05/16/a4_construction_company_inc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T04:08:04.130067Z","date_created":"2025-06-10T15:00:36.276885Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"9a984fb5ef4c15b964c4fce747c4f14cdfb2d470","snippet":"                   ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS\n\n    Appeals of -                                )\n                                                )\n    A4 Construction Company, Inc.               )    ASBCA Nos. 63252, 63456\n                                                )               63626, 63961\n                                                )\n    Under Contract Nos. W9128F-19-C-0016        )\n                        W9128F-19-C-0018        )\n\n    APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11068147],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10311855/rokovitz-v-manley-construction/","attorney":"","caseName":"Rokovitz v. Manley Construction","caseNameFull":"","citation":["563 P.3d 433","2025 UT App 3"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":10311855,"court":"Court of Appeals of Utah","court_citation_string":"Utah Ct. App.","court_id":"utahctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-01-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Case No. 20230590-CA","docket_id":69535361,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T17:55:30.594390Z","date_created":"2025-01-10T20:17:32.032002Z","score":{"bm25":54.43166}},"neutralCite":"2025 UT App 3","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[873653,1281568,2636667,3173289,4395477,4540738,4662826,5139127,6327785,9568476,9782260,9973889],"download_url":"https://legacy.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/Rokovitz v. Manley Construction20250109_20230590_3.pdf","id":10778443,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/01/09/rokovitz_v._manley_construction.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-06T16:40:13.768068Z","date_created":"2025-01-10T20:17:32.042646Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"14ad88f44908fd00e218e86d5eb608db510e3201","snippet":"                         2025 UT App 3\n\n\n\n               THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS\n\n           MAURICE ROKOVITZ AND DAWN ROKOVITZ,\n                       Appellants,\n                            v.\n               MANLEY CONSTRUCTION LLC,\n                        Appellee.\n\n                             Opinion\n                        No. 20230590-CA\n                      Filed January 9, 2025\n\n        Fourth District Court, Spanish Fork Department\n                The Honorable Jared Eldridge\n      ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10778443],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9402620/malone-v-mccullough-construction/","attorney":"","caseName":"Malone v. McCullough Construction","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9402620,"court":"Nebraska Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Neb. Ct. App.","court_id":"nebctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-05-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A-22-722","docket_id":67448252,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:07:06.255811Z","date_created":"2023-05-30T14:07:07.927285Z","score":{"bm25":53.579403}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2220262,2735283,4190472,4203841,4379957,9388660],"download_url":"https://supremecourt.nebraska.gov/sites/default/files/a22-722m.pdf","id":9398096,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/05/30/malone_v._mccullough_construction.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-28T18:59:11.090177Z","date_created":"2023-05-30T14:07:07.928420Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b3b7bfd20420c33abd1c4d115dcc08c11e117944","snippet":"                          IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS\n\n               MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL\n                        (Memorandum Web Opinion)\n\n                            MALONE V. MCCULLOUGH CONSTRUCTION\n\n\n  NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION\n AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E).\n\n\n                               CHRISTOPHER MALONE, APPELLANT,\n                                                 V.\n\n         ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9398096],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4757369/construction-drilling-inc-v-engineers-construction-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Construction Drilling, Inc. v. Engineers Construction, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2020 VT 38"],"citeCount":12,"cluster_id":4757369,"court":"Supreme Court of Vermont","court_citation_string":"Vt.","court_id":"vt","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-05-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2019-096, 2019-205","docket_id":17204709,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-11-26T16:04:36.862069Z","date_created":"2020-05-29T15:24:26.132670Z","score":{"bm25":53.12782}},"neutralCite":"2020 VT 38","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[487498,1043752,1043833,1057199,1057237,1352634,1440033,1529619,1979885,1981625,1998616,2086422,2112616,2342641,2349606,2396278,2402002],"download_url":"https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/sites/default/files/documents/op19-096.pdf","id":4537716,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/05/29/construction_drilling_inc._v._engineers_construction_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T19:01:26.270022Z","date_created":"2020-05-29T15:24:26.136361Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d40e4518d2aeb34fec3645d9736cb5e02fc45f7a","snippet":"NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal\nrevision before publication in the Vermont Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter\nof Decisions by email at: JUD.Reporter@vermont.gov or by mail at: Vermont Supreme Court, 109\nState Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801, of any errors in order that corrections may be made\nbefore this opinion goes to press.\n\n\n                                           2020 VT 38\n\n                          ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4537716],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9478473/jones-v-solgen-construction/","attorney":"","caseName":"Jones v. Solgen Construction","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9478473,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-02-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"F085918","docket_id":68284660,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:26:07.533100Z","date_created":"2024-02-27T00:01:43.355890Z","score":{"bm25":52.49008}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[623142,945775,1034673,1175050,1309638,2128025,2167250,2188733,2249932,2264682,2274687,2284556,2302553,2305899,2569097,2628290,2633651,2764587,2777780,2799377,3196988,4291703,4423943,4683384,5175654,5452218,5452411,5665761,5665781,6106373,6106706,6107245,6107706,9440172,9526562,9810170,9822107,9850048,9871984,9940183,9943840],"download_url":"http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/F085918.PDF","id":9945086,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/02/26/jones_v._solgen_construction.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-29T10:24:59.363814Z","date_created":"2024-02-27T00:01:43.358216Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c0ee108c3cfba9629c695d7161c7c86480a5ecba","snippet":"Filed 2/2/24; Certified for Publication 2/26/24 (order attached)\n\n\n\n\n              IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\n MARY ANN JONES,\n                                                                        F085918\n          Plaintiff and Respondent,\n                                                                    (Fresno Super. Ct.\n                   v.                                              No. 22CECG01590)","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9945086],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4860320/carothers-construction-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Carothers Construction, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4860320,"court":"Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals","court_citation_string":"A.S.B.C.A.","court_id":"asbca","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-02-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"ASBCA No. 62204","docket_id":59696538,"judge":"Clarke","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:43:50.308516Z","date_created":"2021-03-02T17:00:10.179517Z","score":{"bm25":52.4693}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[267610],"download_url":"http://www.asbca.mil/Decisions/2021/62204%20Carothers%20Construction,%20Inc.%202.11.21%20Decision.pdf","id":4664099,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/02/11/carothers_construction_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-28T21:25:58.869613Z","date_created":"2021-03-02T17:00:10.185415Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"77fc5f6e891742da954bf40a7336c734e706356d","snippet":"               ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS\n\nAppeal of --                                  )\n                                              )\nCarothers Construction, Inc.                  )   ASBCA No. 62204\n                                              )\nUnder Contract No. W91278-12-D-0037           )\n\n\nAPPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:                      Ralph B. Germany, Jr., Esq.\n                                                    Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP\n                   ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4664099],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9442332/sungjee-construction-co-ltd/","attorney":"","caseName":"Sungjee Construction Co., Ltd.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9442332,"court":"Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals","court_citation_string":"A.S.B.C.A.","court_id":"asbca","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-07-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"62002, 62170","docket_id":68019563,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:17:35.686139Z","date_created":"2023-11-18T22:01:27.575544Z","score":{"bm25":51.20478}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[494000,766701,2244830,4237068,6648095],"download_url":"http://www.asbca.mil/Decisions/2023/62002,%2062170%20Sungjee%20Construction%20Co.,%20Ltd.%207.11.23%20Decision.pdf","id":9900157,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/07/11/sungjee_construction_co._ltd..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:18:58.250448Z","date_created":"2023-11-18T22:01:27.577040Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c8e8b9d47ada5db49ea9b69d66691752658c22e6","snippet":"                ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS\n\n Appeals of -                                  )\n                                               )\n Sungjee Construction Co., Ltd.                ) ASBCA Nos. 62002, 62170\n                                               )\n Under Contract No. W91QVN-14-D-0050           )\n\n APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:                    Yong Eui Song, Esq.\n                                                   Central IP & Law\n                                  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9900157],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4801452/facchina-construction-litigations/","attorney":"","caseName":"Facchina Construction Litigations","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4801452,"court":"Superior Court of Delaware","court_citation_string":"Del. Super. Ct.","court_id":"delsuperct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-10-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"N17C-09-163 PRW CCLD","docket_id":18585062,"judge":"Wallace J.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:27:36.594426Z","date_created":"2020-10-29T16:02:54.291467Z","score":{"bm25":51.119793}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1443950,1484430,1518403,1536001,1885279,1888053,1900681,1917473,2075292,2167386,2266268,2273298,2274537,2277625,2294957,2324516,2357853,2397413,2448134],"download_url":"http://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=312490","id":4581799,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/10/29/facchina_construction_litigations.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T19:29:15.661693Z","date_created":"2020-10-29T16:02:54.298041Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7d5e63858c802598081b35ff7d3056789c3ee7cd","snippet":"IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE\n\n \n\nFACCHINA CONSTRUCTION C.A. No. N17C-09-163 PRW CCLD\nLITIGATIONS CONSOLIDATED\n\n \n\n \n\nSubmitted: July 2, 2020\nDecided: October 29, 2020\n\nDECISION AFTER TRIAL\n\nStephen B. Brauerman, Esquire, Elizabeth A. Powers, Esquire, BAYARD, P.A.,\nWilmington, Delaware; Robert Mahoney, Esquire, Saleem Mawji, Esquire,\nNORRIS MCLAUGHLIN, P.A., Bridgewater, New Jersey, Attorneys for Plaintiff\nPaul V. Facchina, Sr.\n\nKelly A. Green, Esquire, Jennifer M. Rutter, Esqui","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4581799],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4839861/gsc-construction-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"GSC Construction, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4839861,"court":"Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals","court_citation_string":"A.S.B.C.A.","court_id":"asbca","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-11-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"ASBCA No. 59402, 59601","docket_id":18749519,"judge":"O'Connell","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:38:39.555879Z","date_created":"2020-12-16T20:00:07.398250Z","score":{"bm25":50.68442}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[791,208347,210278,212106,273989,285861,411812,482942,494000,714928,716711,765078,770234,777949,778976,814046,2647666,2652950,4365061,4384955,4554013,4561936,6644587,6646731,6646811,6648095,6648748,6648989,6653345,6653511,6654105,6654257,6668089,6827028,6827061,7007285,8597868,8747021,8788452,9420123,9441127,9486790,9496864,9497050,9806325],"download_url":"http://www.asbca.mil/Decisions/2020/59402%2059601%20GSC%20Construction%20Inc.%2011.24.20%20Decision.pdf","id":4643640,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/11/24/gsc_construction_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-27T06:42:41.576160Z","date_created":"2020-12-16T20:00:07.410161Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f58fce2648d491d1e6bb76b72e87b25765651f77","snippet":"                ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS\n\nAppeals of --                                   )\n                                                )\nGSC Construction, Inc.                          )      ASBCA Nos. 59402, 59601\n                                                )\nUnder Contract No. W9126G-11-D-0061             )\n\nAPPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:                         Karl Dix, Jr., Esq.\n                                                       Lochlin B. Samples, Esq.\n       ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4643640],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6623276/amaya-v-dgs-construction/","attorney":"","caseName":"Amaya v. DGS Construction","caseNameFull":"","citation":["278 A.3d 1216","479 Md. 515"],"citeCount":18,"cluster_id":6623276,"court":"Court of Appeals of Maryland","court_citation_string":"Md.","court_id":"md","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-07-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"14/21","docket_id":63588244,"judge":"Watts","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:22:39.245915Z","date_created":"2022-07-13T15:07:14.831358Z","score":{"bm25":50.65556}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":4716,"cites":[104033,104318,105345,105346,1946656,1990460,1991818,1998217,2174977,2323664,2717723,4221555,4223920,4287792,5142084,5142332,7233619,9419471,9645448,9693155,9877294,10487628,10487676],"download_url":"http://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2022/14a21.pdf","id":6499634,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/07/13/amaya_v._dgs_construction.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T08:40:27.530277Z","date_created":"2022-07-13T15:07:14.843432Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b6d2a962d3e7bd78838941029d1f7a59ae50ecae","snippet":"Mario Ernesto Amaya, et al. v. DGS Construction, LLC, et al., No. 14, September Term,\n2021; Juan Carlos Terrones Rojas, et al. v. F.R. General Contractors, Inc., et al., No. 17,\nSeptember Term, 2021\n\nMARYLAND WAGE AND HOUR LAW, MD. CODE ANN., LAB. & EMPL. (“LE”)\n§§ 3-401 TO 3-431 – MARYLAND WAGE PAYMENT AND COLLECTION LAW,\nLE §§ 3-501 TO 3-509 – CODE OF MARYLAND REGULATIONS 09.12.41.10 –\nWAGES – OVERTIME COMPENSATION – HOURS OF WORK – UNJUST\nENRICHMENT – Court of Appeals held that Portal-to-Port","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6499634],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10873663/keathley-v-buddy-ayers-construction-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10873663,"court":"Supreme Court of the United States","court_citation_string":"SCOTUS","court_id":"scotus","court_jurisdiction":"F","dateArgued":"2026-03-24","dateFiled":"2026-06-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"25-6","docket_id":72598770,"judge":"Ketanji Brown Jackson","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-06-11T15:01:22.891223Z","date_created":"2026-06-11T15:01:22.628436Z","score":{"bm25":50.47661}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":1609,"cites":[17682,94133,96405,103229,104414,118435,145878,169443,176414,239473,380742,498115,603507,661737,703252,723939,793580,794324,794851,807743,2708512,2801432,2827258,3010244,4288402,4424820,4519390,6681692,8373934,8410678,9418969,9419776,9422469,9435118,9469793,9478359,9485664,9519929,9798247,9869031,9878456,9885999,11085138],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-6_d1o2.pdf","id":11341134,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2026/06/11/keathley_v._buddy_ayers_construction_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-06-11T15:08:26.749108Z","date_created":"2026-06-11T15:01:22.716179Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"cf98a3890ba6949fd60617746a3274d758a3912d","snippet":"(Slip Opinion)              OCTOBER TERM, 2025                                       1\n\n                                       Syllabus\n\n         NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is\n       being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.\n       The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been\n       prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.\n       See United States v. Detroit ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11341134],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8242861/acc-construction-co-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"ACC Construction Co., Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8242861,"court":"Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals","court_citation_string":"A.S.B.C.A.","court_id":"asbca","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-09-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"ASBCA No. 62265, 62937","docket_id":65365131,"judge":"Melnick","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T17:50:44.130469Z","date_created":"2022-09-21T19:00:09.759296Z","score":{"bm25":50.218613}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[99237,770228,771162,776182,778175,2669605,4025773,4304472,4365061,4425039,4558795,6648582,8596820,9481598,9486743,9798497,9883152],"download_url":"http://www.asbca.mil/Decisions/2022/62265%20ACC%20Construction%20Co.,%20Inc.%209.1.22%20Decision.pdf","id":8208124,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/09/01/acc_construction_co._inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-05T06:38:57.403905Z","date_created":"2022-09-21T19:00:09.764716Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"117c15909082fac8a40ccbfb7d2da01bd462e75c","snippet":"                ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS\n Appeals of -                                )\n                                             )\n ACC Construction Co., Inc.                  )    ASBCA Nos. 62265, 62937\n                                             )\n Under Contract No. W912QR-17-C-0021         )\n\n APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:                    Lochlin B. Samples, Esq.\n                                                   Mackenzie P. Bell, Esq.\n                             ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8208124],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9388717/cruz-v-jimenez-construction-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Cruz v. Jimenez Construction LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9388717,"court":"District Court, District of Columbia","court_citation_string":"D.D.C.","court_id":"dcd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-03-31","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2020-1978","docket_id":67119401,"judge":"Judge Emmet G. Sullivan","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:03:36.590704Z","date_created":"2023-04-01T00:01:30.299159Z","score":{"bm25":49.80839}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":3133,"cites":[104795,105196,110442,145730,145875,187408,663691,743063,777869,2418015,2663634,2663880,2814838,4024399],"download_url":"https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2020cv1978-19","id":9384193,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/03/31/cruz_v._jimenez_construction_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T05:47:30.727001Z","date_created":"2023-04-01T00:01:30.322639Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f75f32a6f0b95ac4ac189640b11dc573048728bf","snippet":"                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                  FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA\n\n\nCARLOS N. ANTUNEZ CRUZ, et\nal.,\n\n          Plaintiffs,\n\nv.                                    No. 20-1978 (EGS)\nJIMENEZ CONSTRUCTION LLC, et\nal.,\n\n          Defendants.\n\n\n                        MEMORANDUM OPINION\n\n\n     Carlos N. Antunez Cruz (“Mr. Cruz”) and Ruth Nicolle Lopez\n\nVillalta (“Ms. Villalta”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring\n\nthis action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards A","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9384193],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"Civil","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4769905/rbc-construction-corp/","attorney":"","caseName":"RBC Construction Corp.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4769905,"court":"Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals","court_citation_string":"A.S.B.C.A.","court_id":"asbca","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-07-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"ASBCA No. 59404, 59962, 60050, 60277, 60851","docket_id":17371933,"judge":"D'Alessandris","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:19:23.643056Z","date_created":"2020-07-22T19:00:06.719673Z","score":{"bm25":49.6099}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[148793,211420,433647,776737,786478],"download_url":"http://www.asbca.mil/Decisions/2020/59404,%2059962,%2060050,%2060277,%2060851%20RBC%20Construction%20Corp.%207.9.20.pdf","id":4550252,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/07/09/rbc_construction_corp..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T19:10:14.463906Z","date_created":"2020-07-22T19:00:06.727060Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"65167be3e91e3d1b78748d0862ce28aaf46bed96","snippet":"                ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS\n\nAppeals of --                       )\n                                    )\nRBC Construction Corp.              )         ASBCA Nos. 59404, 59962, 60050\n                                    )                    60277, 60851\n                                    )\nUnder Contract No. W912QR-11-C-0046 )\n\nAPPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:                   Brian S. Wood, Esq.\n                                                 Sarah K. Carpenter, Esq.","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4550252],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9829624/lusardi-construction-co-v-dept-of-industrial-rel/","attorney":"","caseName":"Lusardi Construction Co. v. Dept. of Industrial Rel.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9829624,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-06-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"D081704","docket_id":68696872,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-25T23:37:34.462420Z","date_created":"2024-06-25T18:05:26.995757Z","score":{"bm25":49.4626}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1033521,2246467,2248952,2257053,2258632,2296767,2300900],"download_url":"http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D081704.PDF","id":10296236,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/06/25/lusardi_construction_co._v._dept._of_industrial_rel..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T17:01:39.579440Z","date_created":"2024-06-25T18:05:26.997794Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e105e80d3a295fb5f670939dc6f92de60ea0fefb","snippet":"Filed 5/28/24; certified for publication 6/25/24 (order attached)\n\n\n\n\n              COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\n                                         DIVISION ONE\n\n                                   STATE OF CALIFORNIA\n\n\n LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION                                      D081704\n COMPANY,\n\n         Plaintiff and Appellant,\n                                                           (Super. Ct. No.\n         v.                                                 37-2020-00021","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10296236],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4641618/gsc-construction-incorporated/","attorney":"","caseName":"GSC Construction Incorporated","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4641618,"court":"Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals","court_citation_string":"A.S.B.C.A.","court_id":"asbca","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-07-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"ASBCA No. 59046, 59957","docket_id":15948584,"judge":"Page","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:43:30.373378Z","date_created":"2019-07-22T18:00:04.483080Z","score":{"bm25":49.339676}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[272813,296657],"download_url":"http://www.asbca.mil/Decisions/2019/59046,%2059957%20GSC%20Construction,%20Inc.%207.11.19.pdf","id":4418871,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/07/11/gsc_construction_incorporated.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:39:00.577880Z","date_created":"2019-07-22T18:00:04.489976Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d33aaeb116c317ebaa7de8d35258805cfc0dc323","snippet":"                ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS\n\nAppeals of --                                )\n                                             )\nGSC Construction, Incorporated               )      ASBCA Nos. 59046, 59957\n                                             )\nUnder Contract No. W9126G-11-D-0061          )\n\nAPPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:                       James S. DelSordo, Esq.\n                                                     Argus Legal, PLLC\n                              ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4418871],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}