Fanderlik-Locke Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
285 F.2d 939 · 1960
Citation profile
67 federal appellate · 5 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably 34 Ohio App. 3d 170 - Gibbons-Grable Co. v. Gilbane Building Co. (1986), United States v. Western States Mechanical Contractors Inc (1987)
67 federal appellate · 5 district · 11 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 United States Ex Rel. Sherman v. Carter Constr. Co. · United States v. Blair ex rel. Roanoke Marble & Granite Co. · United States v. Wunderlich · United States v. Moorman · United States v. Joseph A. Holpuch 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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“ordinarily the fact that a prime contractor has a claim for the same amounts pending under the 'disputes clause' of the prime contract, does not affect Miller Act cases”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“fraudulent, arbitrary, capricious, or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is well established that the purpose of the Miller Act is to provide security for those who furnish labor and material in the performance of government contracts, and a liberal construction should be given the Act to accomplish this purpose. The benefits of the Act are not intended for the prime contractor who is required to furnish bond to effectuate its provisions. Since there is no contract, express or implied, between a subcontractor and the goverment, there is no procedure by which the claim of a subcontractor can be presented against the United States except as it may become a claim of the prime contractor. A subcontractor has no standing before the Contracting Officer or the Board of Contract Appeals, and no provision is made for the hearing of disputes between a prime contractor and a subcontractor. The remedy for a subcontractor seeking to recover for labor and materials furnished on a government contract is under the Miller Act, and it has been held that when a prime contractor has a claim for the same amounts pending under the “disputes clause” of the prime contract, a subcontractor’s claim under the Miller Act is not affected. To insure payment in full for such materials and labor, a general contractor is required to furnish sufficient bond to secure the contract. The right to sue on the surety bond is a right created by statute, and in absence of a novation or clear expression to the contrary, the -contention that there has been a waiver or release of that rig”
3 later decisions 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.