Search for: "Miller v. State of Virginia et al"
Results 1 - 20
of 56
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Aug 2009, 2:00 am
Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America, et. al. held that, despite language in the General Contractor's contract allowing setoff for obligations based upon "any other contract or agreement," Miller Act claims are not subject to setoff based on non federal projects. [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 9:00 am
The Eastern District ruling essentially states that the Miller Act and the standard Miller Act bond form trumps any private contractual language as it relates to non-federal projects. [read post]
2 Jun 2021, 8:15 am
In Dickson v Forney Enterprises, Inc. et. al., the Court looked at the question of whether costs of a project manager’s purely clerical duties can be included and correspondingly whether performing those duties can extend the relevant one-year limitations period for filing suit. [read post]
2 Jun 2021, 8:15 am
In Dickson v Forney Enterprises, Inc. et. al., the Court looked at the question of whether costs of a project manager’s purely clerical duties can be included and correspondingly whether performing those duties can extend the relevant one-year limitations period for filing suit. [read post]
9 Apr 2014, 1:16 pm
Western Surety, et al., the Virginia based federal appellate court examined a side deal between a mechanical contractor and its supplier regarding payment for equipment supplied to a project in Chesapeake, VA. [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 8:28 am
Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America, et. al. held that, despite language in the General Contractor’s contract allowing set-off for obligations based upon “any other contract or agreement,” Miller Act claims are not subject to setoff based on non federal projects. [read post]
8 Dec 2008, 3:05 pm
The case is Graham County Soil & Water District, et al., v. [read post]
3 May 2013, 12:08 pm
The case, Halbig et al v. [read post]
16 Sep 2021, 1:28 pm
Ransgate Corp., et. al. looked at claims for indemnity by a surety and the principal/indemnitors in the event that the Surety settled such a claim. [read post]
1 Aug 2023, 7:00 am
AFS of Bastian, Inc et al, the Court considered an arbitration clause in a service agreement. [read post]
25 Dec 2018, 10:15 am
Beamon, et. al. in the Portsmouth, VA Circuit Court and recently got a great opinion (.pdf) right on point that was recently featured in Virginia Lawyers Weekly. [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 11:19 am
Keller on behalf of STATE OF TEXAS (Keller, Scott) (Entered: 11/28/2017)11/28/201711 MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae by STATE OF TEXAS, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, STATE OF ALABAMA, STATE OF ARKANSAS, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF LOUISIANA, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Brief of Texas et al., # 2 Text… [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 11:19 am
Keller on behalf of STATE OF TEXAS (Keller, Scott) (Entered: 11/28/2017)11/28/201711 MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae by STATE OF TEXAS, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, STATE OF ALABAMA, STATE OF ARKANSAS, STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF LOUISIANA, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Brief of Texas et al., # 2 Text… [read post]
22 Jan 2008, 7:04 am
The anitrust case (Pacific Bell Telephone, et al., v. linkLine Communications, et al., 07-512) is a test of the theory that a “prize squeeze” violates the Sherman Act. [read post]
24 Nov 2014, 4:00 am
Recent Books:Franco Garelli, Religion Italian Style: Continuities and Changes in a Catholic Country, (Ashgate, Nov. 2014).Marie-Claire Foblets, et. al. [read post]
5 Jun 2023, 6:00 am
Driven Construction et. al. involved a supplier that sought to enforce its credit agreement against both the corporate entity of the contractor, Driven, and the guarantor, a principal of the company. [read post]
3 Jan 2022, 6:00 am
In Clark Nexsen, Inc. et. al v. [read post]
30 Apr 2007, 8:03 am
(Buffalo Teachers Federation et al. v. [read post]
14 Sep 2009, 6:01 am
United States and Black, et al. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 6:00 am
Western Surety, et al., the Virginia based federal appellate court examined a side deal between a mechanical contractor and its supplier regarding payment for equipment supplied to a project in Chesapeake, VA. [read post]
