Legal Opinion
United States Ex Rel. United Rentals, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance
District Court, W.D. Texas
Decided October 13, 2004No. 1:03-cv-00131PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
YEAXEL, District Judge.
BE IT REMEMBERED that on July 19, 2004, the Court called the above-styled case for trial. Plaintiff United States for the Use of United Rentals, Inc. (“United Rentals”) appeared by counsel; Defendant Hartford Fire Insurance Company (“Hartford”) appeared by counsel. Having carefully considered the evidence in this action, the Court concludes that Hartford is not liable to United Rentals. In so deciding, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, holding, in summary, that the Miller Act’s one-year statute…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Glus v. Brooklyn Eastern District TerminalSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Frank T. Miller v. New Jersey State Department of Corrections Donald E. Lewis, Warden/administrator Attorney General of the State of New JerseyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
- Insurance Co. v. WilkinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Matsuo Yoshida and Chisato Yoshida v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957
- United States ex rel. Harvey Gulf International Marine, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Highland Renovation Corp. v. Hanover Insurance GroupDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2009
- Hesseltine v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.District Court, E.D. Texas · 2005
- Highland Renovation Corporation v. Hanover Insurance GroupDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2009
- Star Operations, Inc. and Great American Insurance Company of New York v. Dig Tech, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2015