Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Harry L. Ryan, Jr., Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Lawrence J. Simmons, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellants. Mr. Dickson R. Loos, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Alexander M. Heron, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee R.E. Anderson Co., Inc., in No. 14,143. Mr. Thomas S. Jackson, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. Robert M. Gray and Martin R. Fain, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellees Harry A. Hale, t/a Harry A. Hale Co., and United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. in No. 14,144.
Judges
  • Elijah Barrett Prettyman
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Harry L. Ryan, Jr., Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Lawrence J. Simmons, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellants. Mr. Dickson R. Loos, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Alexander M. Heron, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee R.E. Anderson Co., Inc., in No. 14,143. Mr. Thomas S. Jackson, Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. Robert M. Gray and Martin R. Fain, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellees Harry A. Hale, t/a Harry A. Hale Co., and United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. in No. 14,144.
Judges
  • Elijah Barrett Prettyman
See more information ...
Smart Summary

GUNNELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc., and Maryland Casualty Company, Appellants, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, to the Use of R.E. ANDERSON COMPANY, Inc., Appellee. GUNNELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc., and Maryland Casualty Company, Appellants,

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Gunnell Construction Company, Inc., erected a public building for the District of Columbia under a contract which was performed in parts by various subcontractors. Damage to certain parts of the structure installed by appellees as subcontractors after completion of their subcontracts but before appellant as prime contractor had delivered the building to the District gave rise to these cases. The District Court found the damage not attributable to the subcontractor appellees and there is evidence sufficient to sustain such findings.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

GUNNELL CONSTRUCTION CO. v. DIST. OF COLUMBIA
(Apr 3, 1958)