Pierce Associates, Inc. v. Nemours Foundation’s Empirical Analysis
865 F.2d 530 · 1988
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 15 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Outlaw v. Airtech Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc. (2005), Nemours Foundation v. Manganaro Corp. (1989)
6 federal appellate · 15 district · 4 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1821 · 28 U.S.C. § 1961
Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Scharffe v. Perkins · East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc. · Rodriguez v. United States · Filmon v. Florida
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Typically when major construction is involved an owner has neither the desire nor the ability to negotiate with and supervise the multitude of trades and skills required to complete a project. Consequently an owner will engage a general contractor. The general contractor will retain, coordinate and supervise subcontractors. The owner looks to the general contractor, not the subcontractors, both for performance of the total construction project and for any damages or other relief if there is a default in performance. Performance and the payment of damages are normally assured by the bond of a surety on which the general contractor is principal and the owner is the obligee. The general contractor, in turn, who is responsible for the performance of the subcontractors, has a right of action against any subcontractor which defaults. Performance and payment of damages by a subcontractor are normally assured by the bond of a surety on which the subcontractor is principal and the general contractor is the obligee. Thus the typical owner is insulated from the subcontractors both during the course of construction and during the pursuit of remedies in the event of a default. Conversely, the subcontractors are insulated from the owner. The owner deals with and, if necessary, sues the general contractor, and the general contractor deals with and, if necessary, sues the subcontractor.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to the Contractor by the terms and conditions of the [prime contract] ... and to assume toward the Contractor all the obligations and responsibilities that the Contractor ... assumes toward the Owner”
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.