Legal Opinion
Continental Casualty Company v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided December 4, 1957No. 63-57PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WHITAKER, Judge.
Plaintiff was surety on a contract between the Maritime Commission and the Pennsylvania Drydock & Shipbuilding Company for the repair of certain vessels that had been for the four prior years laid up at Lee Hall, Virginia, including the SS. William Tyler and the SS. Franklin King. The surety bond was required by the “Miller Act” (40 U.S.C.A. § 270a), reading:
“Before any contract * * * for the construction, alteration, or repair of any public building or public work of the United States is awarded to any person, such person shall furnish to the United States the following bonds…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- American Stevedores, Inc. v. PorelloSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Canadian Aviator, Ltd. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Calmar Steamship Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Thomason v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1950
- United States v. LoyolaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1947
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- United States v. United Continental Tuna Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Amell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Marine Coatings of Alabama, Inc. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. Alabama · 1987
- Buck Kreihs Co. v. International Marine Carriers, Inc.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1990
- United Fruit Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1958
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.