Basic Refractories, Inc. v. Bright’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
2 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 2007
2 district · 14 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 Title Guaranty Trust Company v. Crane Company · Farrar v. Christy's Administrators · 196 Mo. App. 291 - Hartford Fire Ins. v. Casey · Hartford Acc. Etc. Co. v. Indus. Acc. Com. · 10 Colo. App. 200 - Cary Hardware Co. v. McCarty
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The general rule has always been that plaintiff cannot recover more than the penalty of the bond. An attorney’s fee is a part of the loss sustained by an obligee when compelled to sue on a bond. In other words, it partakes of the nature of the damages sustained, and the agreement to pay same makes it a part of such damages. But the bond does not provide for protection against damages beyond the amount of the penalty. As to such damages in excess of the penalty, the obligee must stand the loss himself or at least look elsewhere than to the surety.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“". . . Under the rule here adopted, it is immaterial that the legal title to the land in question is in the United States. The United States authorized the leasing of such land for townsite purposes, and by the terms of such a lease an estate is created. The territory and the general government are bound by their contracts the same as an individual, and it is only the estate held by the appellant that can be affected by this lien. . . . where the government leases land for a term of years, such lease must be measured by the general law applicable to such instruments, unless exceptions affirmatively are made by the law itself. . . . ” In 53 Am. Jur. 2d, § 44, at p. 557, is found the following: ‘The courts generally hold that, subject to the paramount title of the owner in fee and the conditions of the lease, a leasehold estate is subject to a mechanic’s lien for an improvement erected by or under a contract with the lessee. It has been so held even though the land is the property of a municipality or of the United States. Some statutes expressly provide that the lien extends to leasehold interests.” See also 57 C.J.S., § 17, Mechanic’s Lien.”
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.