History
  • No items yet
midpage
Dusenbury v. State
266 A.D. 889
N.Y. App. Div.
1943
Check Treatment

*890Crapser, Heffeman and Sehenek, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., and Bliss, J., dissent upon the ground that chapter 142 of the Laws of 1938 constituted a change in plans on the part of the State and under the contract claimant was entitled to receive the actual cost of the discarded plans.

Case Details

Case Name: Dusenbury v. State
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: Jun 30, 1943
Citation: 266 A.D. 889
Docket Number: Claim No. 25817
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.