Bryan Builders Supply v. Midyette’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 127 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 136 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably Sykes v. Health Network Solutions, Inc. (2019), Vogel v. Reed Supply Company (1970)
3 federal appellate · 127 state decisions
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.
Relationships
Relies on Lewis & Queen v. N. M. Ball Sons · Northen v. Elledge · 225 Cal. App. 2d 451 - Culbertson v. Cizek · Robbins v. C. W. Myers Trading Post, Inc. · State ex rel. Freeman v. Ponder
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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The purpose of Article 1 of Chapter 87 of the General Statutes, which prohibits any contractor who has not passed an examination and secured a license as therein provided from undertaking to construct a building costing $20,000.00 or more, is to protect the public from incompetent builders. When, in disregard of such a protective statute, an unlicensed person contracts with an owner to erect a building costing more than the minimum sum specified in the statute, he may not recover for the owner’s breach of that contract. This is true even though the statute does not expressly forbid such suits.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“The same rule which prevents an unlicensed person from recovering damages for the breach of a construction contract has generally been held also to deny recovery where the cause of action is based on quantum meruit or unjust enrichment. ... To deny an unlicensed person the right to recover damages for breach of the contract, which it was unlawful for him to make, but to allow him to recover the value of work and services furnished under that contract would defeat the legislative purpose of protecting the public from incompetent contractors. .. . The importance of deterring unlicensed persons from engaging in the construction business outweighs any harshness between the parties and precludes consideration for unjust enrichment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Upon Bryan’s stipulation that at all times pertinent to this litigation it was not licensed to construct buildings ‘where the cost is $20,000.00 or more,’ Judge McKinnon correctly dismissed its action against owners for the balance due under the terms of the contract upon which it had sued. McArver v. Gerukos, 265 N.C. 413 , 144 S.E. 2d 277 ; Tillman v. Talbert, 244 N.C. 270 , 93 S.E. 2d 101 ; Cowrtney v. Parker, 173 N.C. 479 , 92 S.E. 324 . * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.