Hitt v. Smallwood

How courts have described this case

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

• “If the aggregate cost upon the face of the account is so excessive and unreasonable as to suggest gross negligence or fraud, the law would impose upon the contractor the duty of establishing the bona fides of his performance of the work.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Sterling v. Trust Co.
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1928-03-01· cited 19×
• Cannon v. Searles
  Court of Appeals of Virginia· 1928-05-24· cited 16×
• Boston v. Shackelford
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1934-06-14· cited 12×
• Martin v. Penn
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1964-01-20· cited 11×
• Mitchell v. Cox
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1949-03-07· cited 11×
• Roark v. Shelton
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1938-01-13· cited 10×
• Walsh Services, Inc. v. Feek
  Washington Supreme Court· 1954-09-21· cited 8×
• John W. Daniel & Co. v. Janaf, Inc.
  E.D. Virginia· 1958-03-20· cited 4×
• Granite Hall Farms Corp. v. Virginia Trust Co.
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1930-06-12· cited 1×
• Venable v. McNutt
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1930-06-12· cited 1×
• Olmstead Construction, Inc. v. Otter Creek Investments, LLC
  Court of Appeals of Iowa· 2019-09-25
• Alaragy v. Dengler
  Fairfax County Circuit Court· 2004-06-09
• In re Estate of Nash
  Fairfax County Circuit Court· 2004-08-10

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• American Surety Co. v. Hannah
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1925-11-12· cited 12×
• Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Pam
  New York Supreme Court· 1915-10-04· cited 5×