green
Positive treatment
7.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sloan Construction Co. v. Southco Grassing, Inc.
See, e.g., Active Fire Sprinkler Corp. v. United States Postal Service, 811 F.2d 747, 752-753 (2nd Cir.1987) (“The Miller Act does not provide subcontractors with a right of recovery against the United States.”); Arvanis, 739 F.2d at 1290 (“[In the Miller Act] [t]here is clearly no waiver of sovereign immunity.”); Devlin Lumber & Supply Corp. v. United States, 488 F.2d 88, 89 (4th Cir.1973) (“[A] violation of the Miller Act does not create liability on the part of the government....”); Acousti Eng’g Co. of Florida v. United States, 15 Cl.Ct. 698, 701 (Cl.Ct.1988) (“The Miller A…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The Hardaway Company v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
See Westbay Steel, Inc. v. United States, 970 F.2d 648, 650 (9th Cir.1992); McMann v. Northern Pueblos Enters., Inc., 594 F.2d 784 , 785-86 (10th Cir.1979); Devlin Lumber & Supply Corp. v. United States, 488 F.2d 88, 89 (4th Cir.1973); cf. Arvanis v. Noslo Eng'g Consultants, Inc., 739 F.2d 1287 , 1290-92 (7th Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, 469 U.S. 1191 , 105 S.Ct. 964 , 83 L.Ed.2d 969 (1985) (subcontractor could not state a claim under the FTCA for the government's failure to ensure that a payment bond was posted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Westbay Steel, Inc. v. United States
The Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits, addressing factually similar situations, have held that a federal contracting officer’s failure to comply with the Miller Act’s bond approval provision “can have no counterpart in private activity” and “does not create liability on the part of the government under the [FTCA].” Devlin Lumber & Supply Corp. v. United States, 488 F.2d 88, 89 (4th Cir.1973) (Devlin); accord Arvanis v. Noslo Eng’g Consultants, Inc., 739 F.2d 1287 , 1290-92 (7th Cir.1984) (Arvanis), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1191 , 105 S.Ct. 964 , 83 L.Ed.2d 969 (1985); McMa…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Williams
Id. at 137 , citing Devlin Lumber and Supply Corp. v. United States, 488 F.2d 88, 89 (4th Cir.1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marilyn Joyce Sellfors, Etc. v. United States
See Baker v. F & F Investment Co., 489 F.2d 829, 835 (7th Cir.1973); Devlin Lumber & Supply Corp. v. United States, 488 F.2d 88, 89 (4th Cir.1973); Davis v. United States, 395 F.Supp. 793, 795 (D.Neb.1975), affirmed per curiam, 536 F.2d 758 (8th Cir.1976).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Baer v. United States
It follows then that “the Act was not designed to redress breaches of federal statutory duties,” United Scottish Insur *97 a nce Co. v. United States, 614 F.2d 188, 192 (9th Cir. 1979); Baker v. F & F Investment Co., 489 F.2d 829, 835 (7th Cir. 1973); Devlin Lumber & Supply Corp. v. United States, 488 F.2d 88, 89 (4th Cir. 1973); Blessing v. United States, 447 F.Supp. 1160 , 1186 n.37 (E.D.Pa.1978), and the weight of existing legal precedent now holds that “federal regulatory enforcement activities do not give rise to an actionable tort duty owed by the United States.” Carroll v. Unite…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carroll v. United States
It is also clear that allegations of negligence in the enforcement of Federal statutes or regulations are not actionable under the Federal Tort Claims Act unless the conduct in question would result in analogous private liability in the nature of an “ordinary common law tort.” Davis v. United States, 536 F.2d 758, 759 (8th Cir. 1976), affirming per curiam, 395 F.Supp. 793, 795-96 (D.Neb.1975); United States v. Smith, 324 F.2d 622, 624-25 (5th Cir. 1963); Devlin Lumber & Supply Corp. v. United States, 488 F.2d 88, 89 (4th Cir. 1973).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Geo. Byers Sons, Inc. v. East Europe Import Export, Inc.
Devlin Lumber and Supply Corp. v. United States, 488 F.2d 88, 89 (4th Cir. 1973); Zabala Clemente v. United States, 567 F.2d 1140, 1149-50 (1st Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1006 , 98 S.Ct. 1876 , 56 L.Ed.2d 388 (1978); Baker v.F&F Investment Company, 489 F.2d 829, 835 (7th Cir. 1973); United States v. Smith, 324 F.2d 622, 624-25 (5th Cir. 1963); Davis v. United States, 395 F.Supp. 793, 795-96 (D.Neb. 1975), aff’d per curiam, 536 F.2d 758 (8th Cir. 1976). “[E]ven where specific behavior of federal employees is required by federal statute, liability to the beneficiaries of that statute…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mercer v. United States
See Baker v. F & F Investment Co., 489 F.2d 829, 835 (7th Cir. 1973); Devlin Lumber & Supply Co. v. United States, 488 F.2d 88, 89 (4th Cir. 1973); Frazier v. United States, 412 F.2d 22 (6th Cir. 1969); United States v. Smith, 324 F.2d 622 (5th Cir. 1963).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mosley v. United States
Devlin Lumber & Supply Corp. v. United States, C.A. 4th (1973), 488 F.2d 88, 89 (involving an alleged breach of duty under the Miller Act).
discussed
Cited "see"
E.S.M. v. United States
See Id. (citing factually-similar cases Devlin 17 Lumber & Supply Corp. v. U. S., 488 F.2d 88, 89 (4th Cir.1973); Arvanis v. Noslo Eng'g 18 Consultants, Inc., 739 F.2d 1287 , 1290–92 (7th Cir.1984); McMann v. Northern Pueblos 19 Enters., Inc., 594 F.2d 784 , 785–86 (10th Cir.1979); and U. S. v. Smith, 324 F.2d 622 , 20 624–25 (5th Cir.1963)). 21 Because there is no state-tort-law analog to breaching the Government’s duty to 22 ensure compliance with the Miller Act, finding one would effectively create a new cause 23 of action outside existing state tort law.
cited
Cited "see"
Bernitsky v. United States
See Devlin Lumber and Supply Corp. v. United States, 488 F.2d 88 (4th Cir. 1973), Davis v. United States, 395 F.Supp. 793 (D.Neb.1975), affirmed per curiam, 536 F.2d 758 (8th Cir. 1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jones v. United States
See Devlin Lumber and Supply Corporation v. United States, 488 F.2d 88 (C.A. 4th Cir. 1973); Jeffries v. United States, 477 F.2d 52 (C.A. 9th Cir. 1973); and Roberson v. United States, 382 F.2d 714 (C.A. 9th Cir. 1967).
DEVLIN LUMBER AND SUPPLY CORPORATION, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
73-1530.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Dec 6, 1973.
Jerome P. Friedlander, II, Arlington, Va. (Mark P. Friedlander, Jr., Friedlan-der, Friedlander & Brooks, Arlington, Va., on brief), for appellant., Karen K. Siegel, Atty. (Harlington Wood, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Kathryn H. Baldwin and Morton Hollander, Attys., U. S. Dept, of Justice, and Brian P. Get-tings, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appel-lee.
Butzner, Haynsworth, Per Curiam, Widener.
Cited by 32 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
This case involves the liability of the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2674, for the loss suffered by a materialman because the government’s contracting officer failed to require a payment bond from the contractor, as required by the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. § 270a.
The Federal Tort Claims Act makes the United States liable, “ * * * relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private Individual under like circumstances 28 U.S.C. § 2674. The Miller Act is a direction to federal contracting officers, and applicable only to them. individual * # * >>
A violation of the Miller Act, unlike, for example, the negligent operation of a lighthouse, Indian Towing Co., Inc. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61, 76 S.Ct. 122, 100 L.Ed. 48 (1955), can have no counterpart in private activity, and cannot give rise to liability under the common law. Therefore, a violation of the Miller Act does not create liability on the part of the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. United States v. Smith, 324 F.2d 622 (5th Cir. 1963).
Affirmed.