Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 291 U.S. 476 - Globe Indemnity Co. v. United States ex rel. Steacy-Schmidt Manufacturing Co.

Globe Indemnity Co. v. United States ex rel. Steacy-Schmidt Manufacturing Co.’s Empirical Analysis

291 U.S. 476 · 1934

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
December 1981
most recently cited

33 federal appellate · 3 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1981 · most notably R. P. Farnsworth & Co. v. Electrical Supply Co. (1940), United States Casualty Co. v. District of Columbia ex rel. North American Cement Corp. (1939)

33 federal appellate · 3 district · 13 state decisions

310193419401950196019701980decided

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 ex rel. Steacy-Schmidt Mfg. Co. v. Globe Indemnity Co. (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Illinois Surety Company v. United States J a Peeler · Mandel v. United States · Lambert Lumber Co. v. Jones Engineering & Construction Co. · United States ex rel. R. Haas Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Title Guaranty & Surety 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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““A determination, made and recorded in accordance with established administrative practice by the administrative officer or department having the contract in charge, that the contract has been completed and that the final payment is due. . . ."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““If, as respondent maintains, this determination may be supplanted by a subsequent settlement by the Comptroller General, the subcontractors could never be certain that the departmental determination would mark the period of limitation, and suits begun within the statutory period measured from this determination might have to be discontinued and begun anew if the departmental head or disbursing officer should later refer the claim to the Comptroller General.” (page 484, 54 S.Ct. page 501.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The function which he exercises in auditing and settling claims against the government is precisely that which was previously exercised by the Accounting Office in the Treasury Department. Before, as after, the Budget and Accounting Act, claims against the United States might be paid from the proper appropriation upon approval of the authorized officer of the department concerned, without previous settlement or audit by the accounting office.”
    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.