Legal Opinion

Hochevar v. Maryland Casualty Co.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided October 15, 1940No. 8266PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARANT, Circuit Judge.

The Commissioners of Belmont County, Ohio, entered into a written contract with the Burd Construction Company on June 20, 1928, for the grading and paving of a section of county road by November 1, 1929. The County was to retain fifteen per cent of monthly estimates until completion of the work. Appellee executed a bond, conditioned to be void upon performance of the contract and payment by the Burd Company of “all lawful claims of subcontractors, ma-terialmen, and laborers for labor performed and materials furnished in the carrying forward, performing or completing of…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Von Hoffman v. City of QuincySupreme Court of the United States · 1867
  2. State Ex Rel. Southern Surety Co. v. SchlesingerOhio Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Royal Indemnity Co. v. Day & Maddock Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Fort Worth Independent School Dist. v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1931
  5. Claiborne Parish Sch. Bd. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of MarylandCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1930

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. National Surety Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1997
  2. Harold Ruth v. Bituminous Casualty CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1970
  3. Minidoka County Ex Rel. Detweiler Bros. v. KriegerIdaho Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Graybar Electric Co. v. Manufacturers Casualty Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1956
  5. American Casualty Company v. Town of Shattuck, Okl.District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1964

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API