green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 10×
52.2 score
“we agree with the conclusion of the court of claims that, upon notification by the surety of unsatisfied claims of the materialmen, the government became a stakeholder with respect to the amount not yet expended under the contract that it holds at the time of notification of defa…”
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Argonaut Insurance v. Falcon V
a suretyship is the result of a three-party agreement, whereby one party (the surety) becomes liable for the principal's or obligor's debt or duty to the third party obligee.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Colonial Surety Co. v. United States
(6×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
when a contractor defaults under the contract, the obligation of the surety then arises under its performance and payment bonds.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United Surety & Indemnity Co. v. United States
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
ujpon notification by the surety of the unsatisfied claims of the materialmen, the government became a stakeholder with respect to the amount not yet expended under the contract that it holds at the time of notification of default.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Insurance Co. of West v. United States
(6×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
whether and under what circumstances the government chooses to disburse the progress payment in dispute pertains not to the issue of jurisdiction, but rather, to the propriety of the government's actions.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Nelson Construction Co. v. United States
(6×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
a suretyship is the result of a three-party agreement, whereby one party (the surety) becomes liable for the principal's or obligor's debt or duty to the third-party obligee.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
National American Insurance v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
e hold that both the claims court and this court have jurisdiction to hear the claim of a miller act surety against the united states for funds allegedly improperly disbursed to a contractor.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Commercial Casualty Insurance v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
e can discern no reasonable basis for the government's distinction between retainages and progress payments....
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Insurance Co. of the West v. United States
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
we agree with the conclusion of the court of claims that, upon notification by the surety of unsatisfied claims of the materialmen, the government became a stakeholder with respect to the amount not yet expended under the contract that it holds at the time of notification of defa…
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Admiralty Construction, Inc, by National American Insurance Co v. John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
surety, as bondholder, is as much a party to the government contract as the contractor. if the surety fails to perform, the government can sue it on the bonds.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Clean Giant, Inc. v. United States
senate report discusses the need for a single point of contact with the contracting officer in order to highlight the risk of allowing direct claims by subcontractors
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Capitol Indemnity Corporation v. United States
(5×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Leeward Construction, Inc v. United States
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Guarantee Company of North v. Ikhana, LLC
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Capitol Indemnity Corporation v. United States
(2×)
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1161 (Fed Cir. 1985).7 “[A] legally enforceable duty can arise between the government and a surety if the surety notifies the government that its principal is in default of the bond agreement.” Hanover Ins.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Deep Fix, LLC v. Marine Well Containment Company LLC
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1163 (Fed.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Hanover Insurance Company (The) v. United States
(3×)
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1164 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. United States
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dwyer v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania (In re Pihl, Inc.)
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1161 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. v. United States
Applicable here, in Balboa Insurance Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1160-61 (Fed.Cir.1985), we held that a Miller Act surety was equitably subrogated to the claims of a prime contractor and could recover from the United States payments made to the prime contractor after the surety had noticed the government of the prime contractor’s default.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. American Home Assurance Co.
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed.Cir.1985)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1161-63 (Fed.Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States ex rel. Custom Grading, Inc. v. Great American Insurance
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed.Cir.1985) (both the principal and surety are liable to the obligee)); see Schmitt v. Insurance Co. of North America, 230 Cal.App.3d 245 , 281 Cal.Rptr. 261, 269 (1991) (“[I]t is not the duty of the surety to protect the principal as if the principal were the insured under an insurance policy.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hartford Fire Insurance v. United States
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1164 (Fed.Cir.1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Oklahoma City v. First American Title & Trust Co.
Co. v. U.S. 775 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed.Cir.1985). $12 Surety contends its liability on the bond was exonerated by the conduct of Principal and Subcontractor in changing the subcontract.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Insurance Co. of the West v. United States
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1161 (Fed.Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. United States
(2×)
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1161 (Fed.Cir.1985) (emphasis omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Haddon Housing Associates, LLC v. United States
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1160-63 (Fed.Cir.1985),” and by shareholders bringing derivative suits on behalf of a corporation that has contracted with the government.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gonzales & Gonzales Bonds & Insurance Agency, Inc.
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1163 (Fed.Cir.1985) (“we hold that both the Claims Court and this court have jurisdiction to hear the claim of a Miller Act surety against the United States for funds allegedly improperly disbursed to a contractor.”); Ins.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Haddon Housing Associates, LLC v. United States
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1160-63 (Fed.Cir.1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
CCA Associates v. United States
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed.Cir.1985)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United Surety & Indemnity Co. v. United States
(2×)
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed.Cir.1985), “a surety, as a bondholder, is as much a party to the Government contract as the contractor.” Therefore, Plaintiff concludes that, “even if the heightened standard of care towards a surety’s interest is not triggered if notification by the surety is not adequate, as the court has concluded, or by actual performance, as [Plaintiff] argued, the Government could not ignore the surety’s interest.” PL Mot. at 11.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Surety Co. v. United States
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1160-61 (Fed.Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. World Commodities Equipment Corp.
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
First Federal Lincoln Bank v. United States
(2×)
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1163 (Fed.Cir.1985) (surety had right to "total fund" remaining in government's possession regardless of "what [the fund] is called").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Fire Insurance v. United States
(2×)
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1163 (Fed.Cir.1985) (“[W]e hold that both the Claims Court and this court have jurisdiction to hear the claim of a Miller Act surety against the United States for funds allegedly improperly disbursed to a contractor.”); Commercial Cas.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Renovation & Construction Co. v. United States
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1161 (Fed.Cir.1985) (“When the surety then finances the contract to completion, it is subrogated to the contract’s property rights in the contract balance.”); Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. United States, 31 Fed.Cl. 540, 542-43 (1994) (“Not having financed the contract to completion, plaintiff cannot claim the status of a subrogee.”).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Nova Casualty Co. v. United States
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed.Cir.1985)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. United States
(4×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed.Cir.1985)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wagner v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed.Cir.1985), there is no privity of contract between the United States and the surety to a government contract, Insurance Co. of the West v. United States, 243 F.3d 1367, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cincinnati Insurance v. United States
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1161-62 (Fed.Cir.1985). 6 Once the surety notifies the government of contractor default and the government becomes a stakeholder in the remaining contract balance, the government is charged “with a duty of acting with reasoned discretion,” id. at 1162 , in disbursing further progress payments by considering the surety’s interests and “tak[ing] reasonable steps to determine for itself that the contractor ha[s] the capacity and intention to complete the job.” Id. at 1164 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Arakaki v. United States
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1160-63 (Fed.Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Capitol Indemnity Corp. v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1161-62 (Fed.Cir.1985).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Nova Casualty Co. v. United States
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1160-61 (Fed.Cir.1985); United States Fid. & Guar.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Insurance v. United States
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed.Cir.1985), the Federal Circuit stated, albeit in dicta, that "[a] suretyship is the result of a three-party agreement, whereby one party (the surety) becomes liable for the principal’s or obligor’s debt or duty to the party obligee.” The Court of Claims made similar statements in a case decided at the turn of the last century.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Fire Insurance v. United States
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1163 (Fed.Cir.1985) (“[W]e hold that both the Claims Court and this court have jurisdiction to hear the claim of a Miller Act surety against the United States for funds allegedly improperly disbursed to a contractor.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance v. City of Pine Bluff
(2×)
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Koretsky v. United States
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1164 (Fed.Cir.1985)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wagner v. United States
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1164 (Fed.Cir. 1985) (explaining that agency determinations are entitled to great deference); Admin.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Preferred National Insurance v. United States
Co. v. United States, 775 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed.Cir.1985), there is no privity of contract between the United States and the surety to a government contract, Insurance Co. of the West v. United States, 243 F.3d 1367, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2001).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Stride Rite Corporation
v.
The United States
v.
The United States
85-2067.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Oct 25, 1985.
Published
7 ITRD 1464, 4 Fed. Cir. (T) 15
STRIDE RITE CORPORATION, Appellant,
v.
The UNITED STATES, Appellee.
Appeal No. 85-2067.
United States Court of Appeals,
Federal Circuit.
Oct. 25, 1985.
Appealed from United States Court of International Trade; Judge restani.
William E. Melahn, Doherty and Melahn, Boston, Mass., argued for appellant.
Jerry P. Wiskin, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, of New York City, argued for appellee. With him on brief were Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, Washington, D.C., and Joseph I. Liebman, Atty. in Charge, International Trade Field Office, New York City.
Before FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge, MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge, and NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
JACK R. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
[*~1158]1
On the basis of its opinion (reported at 605 F.Supp. 279 (1985) ), we affirm the decision of the United States Court of International Trade approving the Customs Service's appraisement (using American Selling Price valuation) of Stride Rite's "Flyer" footwear.
[*~1165]2
AFFIRMED.