Fleisher Engineering & Construction Co. v. United States ex rel. Hallenbeck’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

148 federal appellate · 57 district · 64 state decisions

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 399 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In short, a requirement which is clearly made a condition precedent to the right to sue must be given effect, but in determining whether a provision is of that character the statute must be liberally construed so as to accomplish its purpose. 'Technical rules otherwise protecting sureties from liability have never been applied in proceedings under this statute.' Illinois Surety Co. v. John Davis Co., [ 244 U.S. 376 , 37 S.Ct. 614, 61 L.Ed. 1206]. The same principle should govern the application of the Miller Act. 9 ****** 10 * * * 11 "We think that the purpose of this provision as to manner of service was to assure receipt of the notice, not to make the described method mandatory so as to deny right of suit when the required written notice within the specified time had actually been given and received. In the face of such receipt, the reason for a particular mode of service fails. It is not reasonable to suppose that Congress intended to insist upon an idle form. Rather, we think that Congress intended to provide a method which would afford sufficient proof of service when receipt of the required written notice was not shown.”

   15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States ex rel. General Electric Co. v. H. I. Lewis Construction Co. · United States ex rel. Kelly-Mohrhusen Co. v. Merle A. Patnode Co.

2. “any person having direct contractual relationship with a subcontractor but no contractual relationship express or implied with the contractor furnishing said payment bond shall have a right of action upon the said payment bond upon giving written notice to said contractor within ninety days from the date on which such person did or performed the last of the labor or furnished or supplied the last of the material for which such claim is made, stating with substantial accuracy the amount claimed and the name of the party to whom the material was furnished or supplied or for whom the labor was done or performed....”

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. JW Bateson Co. v. United States Ex Rel. Bd. of Trustees of Nat. Automatic Sprinkler Industry Pension Fund · Western Asbestos Co. v. TGK Const. Co., Inc.

3. “(T)echnical rules otherwise protecting sureties from liability have never been applied in proceedings under this statute”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. York-Shipley, Inc. v. Air Conditioning Contractors, Inc. · Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. Browning-Ferris Machinery Co.