Legal Opinion

United States ex rel. Forsberg v. Fleischmann Const. Co.

District Court, E.D. Virginia

Decided August 4, 1923PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GRONER, District Judge.

This action was brought to enforce liability of the defendants, as contractor and surety, respectively, under the provisions'of the statute of February 24, 1905 (33 Stat. 811 [Comp. St. § 6923]), amending the Act of August 13, 1894 (28 Stat. 278) commonly known as the “Heard Act.” The record is very voluminous, the interventions very numerous, and it was apparent to the court and to counsel, when the Case was ready for trial, that it would be a matter of very serious inconvenience to all concerned to attempt to complete the entire case at a single session of the court.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Illinois Surety Co. v. John Davis Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
  2. United States Ex Rel. Alexander Bryant Co. v. New York Steam Fitting Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1914
  3. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America v. SmootCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Fleischmann Construction Co. v. United States Ex Rel. ForsbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. United States Ex Rel. Baltimore Cooperage Co. v. McCayDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1928
  3. United States Ex Rel. Johnson v. Morley Const. Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1936
  4. United States Ex Rel. Noland Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1941
  5. Fleischmann Const. Co. v. United States ex rel. ForsbergCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1924

7 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