United States of America, for the Benefit and on Behalf of Adam J. Lanehart v. United Enterprises, Inc., and Seaboard Surety Company
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
CHRISTENBERRY, District Judge.
Pursuant to the Miller Act, § 2, 40 U. S.C.A. § 270b, this action was brought in the name of the United States for the benefit and on behalf of Adam J. Lane-hart, to recover a balance of $11,663.96 alleged to be due on a subcontract performed by Lanehart for United Enterprises, Inc. The District Court rendered judgment in favor of Lanehart in the sum of $3,032.87. 118 F.Supp. 427; Id., D.C., 123 F.Supp. 639.
United Enterprises, Inc., entered into a prime contract with the United States to repair, rehabilitate and remodel the hospital facilities at Camp Polk,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States v. WunderlichSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- United States v. MoormanSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- United States ex rel. Lanehart v. United Enterprises, Inc.District Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1954
- United States ex rel. Lanehart v. United Enterprises, Inc.District Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1954
3Cited by9 opinions
- United States v. R. H. TaylorCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1964
- United States v. MontgomeryCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1958
- Fred C. McClean Heating Supplies, Inc. v. Jefferson Construction Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1959
- Gebhardt & Smith LLP v. Maryland Port AdministrationCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2009
- United States ex rel. Soda v. MontgomeryDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1957
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.