United States ex rel. Fogle v. Hal B. Hayes & Associates, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
HALBERT, District Judge.
Two basic issues are raised in this action under the Capehart Act [Title 42 U.S.C. § 1594 et seq.]. First, are the requirements as to notice of default under a Capehart Act bond the same as the notice requirements under the Miller Act [Title 40 U.S.C. § 270b(a)]? Second, assuming that the Capehart Act notice requirements are not the same as the Miller Act requirements, is defendant, under the particular facts of this action, estopped to rely upon the notice requirements set forth in its Capehart Act bond ?
Notice Requirements
The interrelationship between the provisions…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- John Hampton and Dorothy Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, and Eastman Kodak CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
- Henshaw v. BissellSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- United States Ex Rel. Noland Co. v. IrwinSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Continental Casualty Company, a Corporation v. The United States of America for the Use and Benefit of the Robertson Lumbercompany, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1962
- Parker v. SagerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1949
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. Georgia-Pacific CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1970
- Heinrich v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1982
- United States v. Fidelity and Casualty Company of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1968
- United States ex rel. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1968
- Missouri-Illinois Tractor & Equipment Co., Inc. v. D & L Construction Company & Associates and Continental Casualty CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1964
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.