# Rel-Reeves, Inc. v. United States

> United States Court of Claims · July 18, 1979 · 606 F.2d 949

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8596660

## Case

- **Full name:** REL-REEVES, INC., SUCCESSOR TO DYNAMICS CORPORATION OF AMERICA v. THE UNITED STATES DIGITAL RESOURCES, INC., AND ELECTRONIC ASSOCIATES, INC., THIRD-PARTY
- **Court:** United States Court of Claims
- **Decided:** July 18, 1979
- **Citations:** 606 F.2d 949; 221 Ct. Cl. 263; 210 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 160; 1979 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 216
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Nichols
- **Judges:** Bennett, Colaianni, Kunzig, Nichols, Trial
- **Cited by:** 14 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/8596660

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that assignment of patent rights in bankruptcy was not subject to the Assignment of Claims Act because the assignment fell within a recognized exception and did not violate the purposes of the Act

## Opinion text

NICHOLS, Judge,
dissenting:
Respectfully, I dissent. Counsel admitted the case was one of first impression. I do not think the facts are appropriate for a new judge-made exception to the Assignment of Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 203. Defendant was asked to consent and consented to the assignment by DCA to Rel-Reeves. Defendant has a legitimate interest in having its consent likewise asked for return of the claim to DCA. It fears it will lose the benefit of offsets maintainable against Rel-Reeves. The return to DCA cannot legitimately be regarded as involuntary or by operation of law.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8596660. Public record. Not legal advice.