Legal Opinion

United States ex rel. Soda v. Montgomery

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Decided February 27, 1959No. Civ. A. No. 5096PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FOLLMER, District Judge.

The facts involved in this action under the “Miller Act” by plaintiff, Soda, as the owner of certain excavation equipment against Montgomery as a prime contractor on a contract with the United States for government construction work, are set forth in this Court’s original Findings of Fact (152 F.Supp. 309) and the Opinion of the Court of Appeals (3 Cir., 253 F.2d 509). The proceedings are before us now on remand.

Section 2(b) of the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C.A. § 270b provides that “(b) * * * no such suit shall be commenced after the expiration of one year after the date of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Peerless Casualty Company v. United States of America, for the Use and Benefit of Bangor Roofing and Sheet Metal Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1957
  2. United States ex rel. Bangor Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. T. W. Cunningham, Inc.District Court, D. Maine · 1956
  3. United States ex rel. Soda v. MontgomeryDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1957

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Golden West Construction Co. v. United States ex rel. BernadotCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1962
  2. Golden West Construction Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1962
  3. United States ex rel. Ward Construction Service, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1960

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API