Barrett v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
367 F.2d 834 · 1966
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently August 1998 · most notably United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States (1973), 407 F. Supp. 164 - American Fidelity Fire Insurance v. Construcciones Werl, Inc. (1975)
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 6651
Relies on United States v. Munsey Trust Co. · Pearlman v. Reliance Insurance · Prairie State Nat Bank of Chicago v. United States · Henningsen v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · Durley v. Mayo
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“vital distinction between instances in which the United States is claimant to the funds in its possession and those situations in which the United States is an impartial stakeholder of funds confessedly owing to one of the contesting parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. United States of America, for the Use and Benefit of Consolidated Electrical Distributing, Inc., and Consolidated Electrical Distributing, Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. J.D. Grainger Company, Inc., Defendant-Cross-Defendant, and Amwest Surety Co., Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellee v. Internal Revenue Service, Third-Party-Defendant-Appellant · United States Consolidated Electrical Distributing Inc v. Jd Grainger Company Inc Amwest Surety Co“It has been long and consistently held that laborers and materialmen do not have legally enforceable rights against the United States for their compensation. United States v. Munsey Trust Co., supra; Continental Cas. Co. v. United States, 164 Ct.Cl. 160 (1964); United Pac. Ins. Co. v. United States, 319 F.2d 893 , 162 Ct.Cl. 361 (1963). Their remedy is on the surety’s payment bond in an action exclusively within the jurisdiction of the district courts under the Miller Act. It is equally well settled that the right of the United States to collect taxes and other debts due by the contractor by offsetting the obligations against funds retained under a Government contract is superior to the claims of the surety or of other private parties. United States v. Munsey Trust Co., supra; Standard Acc. Ins. Co. v. United States, 97 F.Supp. 829 , 119 Ct.Cl. 749 (1951) [overruled 428 F.2d 838, 841 , 192 Ct.Cl. 754 ]; United Pac. Ins. Co. v. United States, 362 F.2d 805 , 176 Ct.Cl. 176 (June 1966).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The government has the same right “which belongs to every creditor, to apply the unappropriated moneys of his debtor, in his hands, in extinguishment of the debts due to him.” ... And one whose own appropriation and payment of money is necessary to create a fund for general creditors .,. is not compelled to lessen his own chance of recovering what is due him by setting up a fund undiminished by his claim, so that others may share it with him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.