Avco Delta Corp. Canada Ltd. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
484 F.2d 692 · 1973
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2013 · most notably Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States (1989), Trans-Bay Engineers and Builders, Inc. v. Carla A. Hills, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (1976)
18 federal appellate · 2 district · 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 6323 · 28 U.S.C. § 1335
Relies on Fuentes v. Shevin · Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View · United States v. City of New Britain · Aquilino v. United States · United States v. Security Trust & Savings Bank
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The rule in Illinois presently appears to be ‘that, if a contract be entered into for a direct benefit of a third person not a party thereto, such third person may sue breach thereof. The test is whether the benefit to the third person is direct to him or is but an incidental benefit to him arising from the contract. If direct he may sue on the contract; if incidental he has no right of recovery thereon.’ Carson Pirie Scott & Co. v. Parrett, 346 Ill. 252, 257 , 178 N.E. 498, 501 (1931). To the same effect, Rhodes Pharmacol Co. v. Continental Can Co., 72 Ill. App. 2d 362, 369 , 219 N.E.2d 726 (1st Dist. 1966). With these Illinois cases in mind, we turn to the present case in which the construction contract specifically withholds final payments until the general contractor provides an affidavit that all his bills have been paid. Initially, we should note that there is no problem with the fact that at the time of the signing of the construction contract the specific creditors of Parkhill, Inc., were not known. As Corbin stated: ‘Of course the beneficiary must be identified before he has an enforceable right; but it is not necessary that he should be identified or identifiable at the time the contract is made. It is enough that he be identified at the time performance is due.’ 4 Corbin on Contracts §781, at 70 (1951). A materialman may be a third party beneficiary of a promise by a general contractor to obtain a surety bond for the prompt payment of all laborers and materialmen,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A materialman may be a third party beneficiary of a promise by a general contractor to obtain a surety bond for the prompt payment of all laborers and ma-terialmen, and, in the context of a government contract, an unpaid material-man of a subcontractor was allowed to sue the general contractor who had failed to provide such a bond as he had covenanted in the construction contract.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Laborers and materialmen, however, have an equitable right to payment from funds due a contractor on a public improvement in preference of general creditors. ... There is a recognized equitable right of unpaid furnishers of labor or materials to such part of the contract price as may remain in the possession of the government after the completion of the work by the contractor.””
1 later decision 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.