Legal Opinion
United States v. Rondout Marine, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 24, 1970No. 69 Civ. 4833PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MANSFIELD, District Judge.
In this Miller Act suit by a use subcontractor (“Essex”) against prime contractors (“Rondout” and “Fibre Glass Boat”) and their surety (“Mayland Casualty”) pursuant to 40 U.S.C. § 270a, in which the use plaintiff claims an unpaid balance in the amount of $5,945.34, plus interest, costs and attorneys’ fees due upon merchandise sold to the prime contractors, the use plaintiff has moved for summary judgment and defendant Maryland Casualty, the surety, has requested that the action be dismissed for lack of venue pursuant to 40 U.S.C. § 270b, which provides:
“Every suit…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Moseley v. Electronic & Missile Facilities, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1963
- United States of America for the Use and Benefit of Frank A. Trucco and Sons Company v. Bregman Construction Corp., and New Amsterdam Casualty CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1958
- United States Ex Rel. Fairbanks Morse & Co. v. Bero Construction Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1957
- United States ex rel. Capolino Sons, Inc. v. Electronic & Missile Facilities, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966
- United States Ex Rel. Bailey-Lewis-Williams of Florida, Inc. v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co. of Canada Ltd.District Court, District of Columbia · 1961
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- McClure Estimating Co. v. H. G. Reynolds Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
- United States Ex Rel. Caswell Equipment Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1980
- United States Ex Rel. Norshield Corp. v. E.C. ScarboroughDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama · 2009