Legal Opinion
Board of County Commissioners v. CAM Construction Co.
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided August 24, 1984No. 95, September Term, 1983PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RODOWSKY, Judge.
Arbitrability is the issue on this appeal. The prime contractor on a building construction project demanded arbitration with the owner. Part of the recovery sought by the prime consists of losses allegedly suffered by subcontractors. Because there is no privity of contract between the owner and subcontractors, the owner denies that the arbitration agreement in the prime construction contract is one to arbitrate “subcontractors’ claims.” We shall reject this contention and hold that the standing of the prime to claim the losses is, at a minimum, sufficient to carry the matter…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Merritt v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- United States v. Blair Ex Rel. Roanoke Marble & Granite Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Severin v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1943
- Gold Coast Mall, Inc. v. Larmar Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1983
- University of Alaska v. Modern Construction, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1974
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Interstate Contracting Corp. v. City of DallasTexas Supreme Court · 2004
- Alamo Community College District v. Browning Construction Co., Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2004
- Farrell Construction Co. v. Jefferson ParishDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1988
- Interstate Contracting Corp. v. City of DallasCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003
- Board of Governors for Higher Educ. v. Infinity Construction, 00-3104 (2000)Superior Court of Rhode Island · 2000
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.