Southerland v. Northern Pac. R.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that work furnished merely to correct defects, or to make repairs following inspection of the project, would not extend the period of limitations
• noting that work furnished merely to correct defects, or to make repairs following inspection of the project, would not extend the period of limitations
• holding that for purposes of the one year limitation for filing suit pursuant to the Miller Act, the last work performed must be “part of the original contract” and not “furnished merely for the purpose of correcting defects, or making repairs following inspection of the project.”
• “[t]he determinative question” is whether the work was “part of the original contract’ or furnished merely for the purpose of correcting defects, or making repairs following inspection of the project.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).