Legal Opinion
A. R. Young Const. Co. v. Road Improvement Dist. No. 2
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided February 20, 1924No. 6205PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTrieber, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The original contract between the district and the construction company, entered into on October 16, 1918, contained, among others, the following provision:
“That, for and in consideration of the payments to be made as hereinafter set forth, the contractor hereby agrees to furnish all tools, labor, equipment, and material required, and to build and construct the improved road in ,said road improvement district No. 2 of Johnson county, Ark.; in exact accordance with the plans and specifications, the originals of which are on file in the office of the state…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- United States v. BehanSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Anvil Mining Co. v. HumbleSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Phillips & Colby Construction Co. v. SeymourSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Chicago, Santa Fé & California Railroad v. PriceSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Guerini Stone Co. v. P. J. Carlin Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- McCullough v. Clinch-Mitchell Const. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934
- Road Improvement Dist. No. 5 of Crittenden County, Ark. v. RoachCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927
- Farrell, to Use v. H. Platt Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Drainage Dist. No. 7 of Poinsett County v. SternbergCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1926
- New Jersey Shipbuilding & Dredging Co. v. Long Beach on the Ocean, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.