# Hill Dredging Corp.

> United States Court of Claims · April 1, 1966 · 175 Ct. Cl. 883

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8593509

## Case

- **Full name:** Hill Dredging Corporation
- **Court:** United States Court of Claims
- **Decided:** April 1, 1966
- **Citations:** 175 Ct. Cl. 883; 1966 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 241; 1966 WL 1535
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8593509

## Opinion text

Contracts; disfutes; administrative remedies, exhaustion of. — Plaintiff sues to recover on its contract for dredging work for the Corps of Engineers claiming that it encountered subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site of the Avork which were not anticipated, that its claim for additional costs incurred was denied by the contracting officer, *884 and, on appeal, by the Corps of Engineers Board of Contract Appeals. Defendant has moved for summary judgment dismissing the petition on the ground that plaintiff has failed to exhaust its administrative remedy of appeal to the head of the department (the Secretary) in accordance with the Disputes clause of the contract. Upon consideration thereof, together with the opposition thereto, and without oral argument and on the basis of Henry E. Wile Co. v. United States, 144 Ct. Cl. 394 , 169 F. Supp. 249 (1959), the court concluded that plaintiff had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and on April 1, 1966, ordered that defendant’s motion be granted and the petition be dismissed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8593509. Public record. Not legal advice.