Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 316 U.S. 23 - United States Noland Co v. Irwin

United States Noland Co v. Irwin’s Empirical Analysis

316 U.S. 23 · 1942

Citation profile

117
cited by 117 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 18 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 117 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2017 · most notably Clifford Macevoy Co v. United States (1944), United States Ex Rel. Sherman v. Carter Constr. Co. (1957)

30 federal appellate · 18 district · 19 state decisions

33019421950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedMaiatico Const. Co. v. United States ex rel. Phelps (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Title Guaranty Trust Company v. Crane Company · Maiatico Const. Co. v. United States ex rel. Phelps · Peterson v. United States ex rel. Marsh Lumber Co. · Irwin v. United States

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

  1. ““(a) Before any contract, exceeding $2,000 in amount, for the construction, alteration, or repair of any public building or public work of the United States is awarded to any person, such person shall furnish to the United States the following bonds, which shall become binding upon the award of the contract to such person, who is hereinafter designated as ‘contractor’ : (1) A performance bond with a surety or sureties satisfactory to the officer awarding such contract, and in such amount as he shall deem adequate, for the protection of the United States. (2) A payment bond with a surety or sureties satisfactory to such officer for the protection of all persons supplying labor and material in the prosecution of the work provided for in said contract for the use of each such person. Whenever the total amount payable by the terms of the contract shall be not more than $1,000,000 the said payment bond shall be in a sum of one-half the total amount payable by the terms of the contract. Whenever the total amount payable by the terms of the contract shall be more than $1,000,000 and not more than $5,000,000, the said payment bond shall be in a sum of 40 per centum of the total amount payable by the terms of the contract. Whenever the total amount payable by the terms of the contract shall be more than $5,000,000 the said payment bond shall be in the sum of $2,500,000.’’”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A]ny 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.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “We have no doubt that the Miller Act was intended to apply to the “public works” authorized by the Administrator under the National Industrial Recovery Act. The National Industrial Recovery Act did not leave to speculation the nature of the “public works” that Congress envisaged. Its language was not technical but plain and specific. Expressly included were “projects of the character heretofore constructed or carried on * * * with public aid to serve the interests of the general public.” Beyond question the library at Howard University was such a project.”
    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.