Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Favel v. American Renovation & Construction Co.

Montana Supreme Court

Decided November 26, 2002No. 01-514Published

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

  1. Universities Research Assn., Inc. v. CoutuSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. United States v. Binghamton Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1954
  3. Active Fire Sprinkler Corp. v. The United States Postal Service and John T. Brady and Company, DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
  4. K-W Industries, a Division of Associates Technologies, Ltd., a Corporation v. National Surety CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
  5. United States Ex Rel. Windsor v. Dyncorp, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1995

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API