United States Fidelity Guaranty Company v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
231 U.S. 237 · 1913
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 15 district · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 171 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1999 · most notably Clifford Macevoy Co v. United States (1944), United States Ex Rel. Sherman v. Carter Constr. Co. (1957)
74 federal appellate · 15 district · 52 state decisions — followed in 17 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States ex rel. Bartlett (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United States ex rel. Hill v. American Surety Co. · Title Guaranty Trust Company v. Crane Company · Guaranty Co. v. Pressed Brick Co. · United States v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co. · French Republic v. Saratoga Vichy Spring Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 171 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Stripped of all technicality, plaintiff and intervenor seek to recover damages claimed to have been incurred because of the breach by the contractor of an implied covenant in the sub-contract against unreasonable delays preventing the subcontractors from proceeding with their work. The parties recognize this, because in the only point relied upon in their designation of points, it is asserted that: ‘ * * * a subcontractor can recover his damages consisting of expenses made necessary by the delay of the principal contractor in a proceeding to recover on the bond under the Heard Act, 40 U.S.Code, Sec. 270.’ They cite numerous authorities to sustain their position that every contract contains an implied warranty against unnecessary delays and that recovery may be had for loss resulting from a breach thereof. These decisions are beside the point, because they arose in actions against the contractor for damages and not against the surety on a Heard Act bond. “The bond on which the action is based is not set out in the abstract, but we may assume that it is in due form and conforms to the requirements of the Act. The Act obligates the surety company to see that the contractor ‘shall promptly make payments to all persons supplying him or them with labor and materials in the prosecution of the work provided for in such contract.’ It requires payment not only of work and materials specifically mentioned in the contract, but also those items which the parties necessarily and reasonabl”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The object of the contract was to put the stone in place, much of it being merely dropped into the water, with a view to the construction of the breakwater. To accomplish this purpose it was of course necessary to have the material taken from the quarry, using tools and labor for that purpose, and transported to the location of the breakwater and there deposited. -This material could not be had * at the breakwater.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.