Standard Acc Ins Co v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
302 U.S. 442 · 1938
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 30 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently November 2006 · most notably Clifford Macevoy Co v. United States (1944), United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States (1952)
61 federal appellate · 30 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedStandard Accident Ins. v. United States (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Illinois Surety Company v. John Davis Company E H B · United States ex rel. Hill v. American Surety Co. · Brogan v. National Surety Co. · Title Guaranty Trust Company v. Crane Company · Guaranty Co. v. Pressed Brick 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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“committed to the doctrine that [the Act] should be liberally construed in aid of the evident public object--security to those who contribute labor or material for public works.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if the Principal shall promptly make payment to all persons supplying labor and material in the prosecution of the work provided for in said contract and any and all duly authorized modifications of said contract that may hereafter be made, notice of which modifications to the Surety being hereby waived, then the ... obligation shall be void and of no effect.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. National State Bank of Newark v. Terminal Const. Corp. · United States of America for the Use and Benefit of T.M.S. Mechanical Contractors, Inc., Cross-Appellee v. Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Texas, Third-Party Cross-Appellant v. The Craftsmen, Inc., Third-Party and Joseph Breedlove, J.D. Richmond, Jr. And Doris D. Richmond, Third-Party“Certainly labor is required for loading freight on railroad cars, moving these over the road, and unloading at destination. A carrier who has procured the doing of all this in respect of material has `furnished labor.' If a contractor had employed men to move the same kind of material in wheelbarrows, there could be no doubt that he furnished labor. In principle the mere use of cars and track and a longer haul creates no materially different situation.”
2 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.