U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1924

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

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided March 10, 1924 · Cubiam

298 F. 330; 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2653

Counsel

Levi H. David, of Washington, D. C., and William F. Kimber, of New York Gity (Catón & Catón, of Alexandria, Va., on brief), for plaintiffs in error., Bynum E. Hinton, of Washington, D. G., for defendants in error.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

United States Ex Rel. Baltimore Cooperage Co. v. McCay (District Court, D. Maryland 1928)
Golden West Construction Company v. United States (10th Cir. 1962)
Golden West Construction Co. v. United States ex rel. Bernadot (10th Cir. 1962)
United States Ex Rel. Noland Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co. (District Court, D. Maryland 1941)
United States Ex Rel. Johnson v. Morley Const. Co. (District Court, W.D. New York 1936)
Alexander Pickering & Co. v. Chinese American Cold Storage Ass'n (9th Cir. 1934)
First Nat. Bank of San Rafael v. Philippine Refining Corp. of New York (9th Cir. 1931)
Fleischmann Construction Co. v. United States Ex Rel. Forsberg (Supreme Court of the United States 1926)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PEB CUBIAM.

The defendants in error insist that there is nothing before

this court because exceptions were not duly taken. The point is serious, but we prefer to rest the affirmance of the judgment on the merits. We think the District Court (298 Fed. 320) was clearly right on all the points decided, and that nothing of substance can be added to the reasoning of the court.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.