General State Authority v. Sutter Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2013
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.
Relationships
Relies on Kassab v. Soya · SPIRES Et Ux. v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. · Salvador v. Atlantic Steel Boiler Co. · 229 Pa. Super. 333 - BAKER v. RANGOS · Hillbrook Apartments, Inc. v. Nyce Crete 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The general rule is that a surety assumes no liability or obligations beyond those set forth in the suretyship agreement; likewise, a bond obligation does not extend beyond the express obligation set out in the agreement. Peter J. Mascaro Co. v. Milonas, 401 Pa. 632 , 166 A.2d 15 (1960); 35 P.L.E. §§ 52, 58, pp. 365-66, 372-73. See also Miller v. Commercial Electric Construction, Inc., 223 Pa.Super. 216 , 297 A.2d 487 (1972). The bond expressly limits National’s liability to $5,196.00. However, general contractor Sutter argues that, because plaintiff GSA alleges that the entire roof must be replaced and is not just in need of repairs, the surety would be liable for any damage that can be shown to have been caused by the allegedly defective materials supplied by Certain-Teed. Assuming that warranties on the roofing materials were made, they were made only by Certain-Teed. To find that National intended to back entirely any warranty made by Certain-Teed, express or implied, would be for us to invent a new suretyship agreement. The surety could not be liable to anyone beyond the express limits set forth in its bond.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“it is not enough that it be intended by one of the parties to the contract and the third person that the latter should be a beneficiary, but both parties to the contract must so intend and must indicate that intention in the contract; in other words . . . the obligation to the third party must be created and must affirmatively appear, in the contract itself. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he complaint contains no allegations of any material facts that would constitute a breach of that contract. The complaint refers to no specific acts of commission or omission on the part of the architects....”
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.