Favel v. American Renovation & Construction Co.
Montana Supreme Court
1ConcurrenceJustice Rice
specially concurring.
*306¶60 I concur with the holding of the Court, but do so under a somewhat different rationale. I agree that the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Workers’ state law claims for breach of contract. However, in reaching that conclusion, I believe it necessary to analyze the Miller Act. The Davis-Bacon Act specifically prescribes an available judicial right of action under the Miller Act for the wages at issue here and, therefore, as a Davis-Bacon prescribed remedy, the Miller Act must be considered in properly assessing the rights of Workers herein.
¶61…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Universities Research Assn., Inc. v. CoutuSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- United States v. Binghamton Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Active Fire Sprinkler Corp. v. The United States Postal Service and John T. Brady and Company, DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
- K-W Industries, a Division of Associates Technologies, Ltd., a Corporation v. National Surety CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
- United States Ex Rel. Windsor v. Dyncorp, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1995
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.