Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01695/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01695-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1695

___________

Rambo Associates, Inc., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

South Tama County Community *

School District, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 14, 2007

Filed: January 11, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

This is an action in contract and quasi-contract for services that an architectural

and consulting firm rendered to a school district. After a bench trial, the district court

entered judgment for Rambo on its contract claim and denied recovery on the quasicontract claim. In an earlier opinion, Rambo Assoc., Inc. v. South Tama County

Community Sch. Dist., 487 F.3d 1178 (8th Cir. 2007), we affirmed the district court's

judgment on the contract claim but remanded for further findings on the quasi-contract

claim. We directed the district court to determine, if it could, what "extra services"

Rambo rendered outside the written contract at South Tama's request, to determine the

reasonable value of those services, and to give judgment to Rambo in that amount.

Appellate Case: 06-1695 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2008 Entry ID: 3390788
-2-

Id. at 1189. We have now received the district court's further findings and legal

conclusions.

The district court, after receiving the parties' briefs and diligently searching the

record, rendered a detailed and thorough opinion in which it held that Rambo was not

entitled to recover because the court could not determine with any reasonable certainty

what "extra services" Rambo rendered or what their reasonable value was. See Quade

v. Heiderscheit, 391 N.W.2d 261, 264 (Iowa Ct. App. 1986). We conclude, after our

examination of the record, that the district court correctly identified the governing

legal principles, made no clearly erroneous factual findings, and did not err in

applying the legal principles to the facts.

We therefore affirm the judgment.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1695 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2008 Entry ID: 3390788