Franklin v. Ratliff

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that despite the fact that the surety “assumed de facto managerial control over the project,” the surety’s right to equitable subrogation “never attached,” because the surety failed to provide notification to the Government
• noting that “numerous cases have recognized ... [the] contracting officer’s [broad] discretion ... unless restricted by the contract”
• agreeing with the plaintiff that “a surety may, without provid ing the requisite notice, recover against an obligee that impairs its suretyship status.”
• “a surety may, without providing the requisite notice, recover against an obligee that impairs its surety-ship status”
• “[A]s a general rule of construction, the statement of a maximum does not imply the existence of a minimum.”
• “[N]otice that the contractor is in default and that the surety is invoking its rights to the remaining contract proceeds converts the government into a stakeholder with duties to the surety.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).