← 316 F.2d 912 - United States v. Van de Riet

United States v. Van de Riet’s Empirical Analysis

316 F.2d 912 · 1963

Citation profile

cited by 12 later decisions

states following

April 2005

most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 2005

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 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 Bowden v. United States · Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance v. United States · United States v. Thompson Construction Corp. · United States ex rel. American Radiator & Sanitary Corp. v. Northwestern Engineering Co. · United States v. Skinner & Ruddock, Inc.

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

“[T]he mere acceptance of the assignment did not create a contractual relationship between [the materialman] and [the general], other than as to the funds due or to become due under [the sub's] contract with [the general]. The latter placed no order with [the materialman] and did not look to [the materialman] for performance of the contract. The entire contract was not treated as assigned; the subject of the assignment was the money due and to become due thereunder.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. US, METAL MFG., INC. v. Federal Ins. Co. · 656 F. Supp. 1194 - United States ex rel. Metal Manufacturing, Inc. v. Federal Insurance
“It is clear that there was no contract, express or implied, whereby Van de Riet obligated itself to pay for such materials, and it is equally clear that there was no contractual relationship, express or implied, between Walke and Van de Riet, within the meaning of the Miller Act which would dispense with the required 90-day notice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. The United States of America for the Use of State Electric Supply Co., Inc., a Corp. v. Hesselden Construction Co., a Corp., and the Travelers Indemnity Co., a Corp., National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., a Corp., B. R. Fulkerson, Jimmie Duane Fulkerson, Individually, Grace v. Fulkerson, A/K/A Mrs. B. R. Fulkerson and Mrs. J. D. Fulkerson, Hesselden Construction Co., a Corp., and the Travelers Indemnity Co., a Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., a Corp., B. R. Fulkerson, Jimmie Duane Fulkerson, Individually, Grace v. Fulkerson, A/K/A Mrs. B. R. Fulkerson and Mrs. J. D. Fulkerson

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.