Heard Act

16 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Hendry Corp.
  391 F.2d 13· 5th Cir.· 1968-02-29 ·cited 32×
• United States for the use & benefit of Bryant Elec. Co., Ltd. v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. & Colonial Constr. Co., Ltd.
  297 F.2d 665· 2d Cir.· 1962-01-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the venue provision of the Miller Act is inapplicable when no United States judicial district exists for contract performance, and jurisdiction can be founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1352.
• Tex. Constr. Co. & United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. United States for the use of Caldwell Foundry & Mach. Co., Inc.
  236 F.2d 138· 5th Cir.· 1956-06-28 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the venue provision in the Miller Act is a waivable privilege for the defendant, not a jurisdictional limitation on the court's power to hear the case.
• Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. D & L Constr. Co.
  353 F.2d 169· 8th Cir.· 1965-11-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a surety is not entitled to reformation of unambiguous bonds based on a unilateral mistake of law, and that completion costs recoverable by a prime contractor must be offset by the unpaid subcontract balance.
• Elec. & Missile Facilities v. United States for the Use of H. W. Moseley
  306 F.2d 554· 5th Cir.· 1962-07-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Miller Act does not preclude arbitration of disputes arising from contracts involving commerce, and that a general claim of fraud in the contract does not invalidate an arbitration clause unless the clause itself was fraudulently procured.
• L. P. Friestedt Co. v. U. S. Fireproofing Co.
  125 F.2d 1010· 10th Cir.· 1942-01-14 ·cited 15×
  Damages for breach of an implied covenant against unreasonable delay by the principal contractor are not recoverable on a bond posted under the Heard Act.
• Great Lakes Const. Co. v. Republic Creosoting Co.
  139 F.2d 456· 8th Cir.· 1943-12-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the subcontractor's intervention was timely because the 'final settlement' date was November 13, 1940, not August 24, 1940, and that the general contractor breached the subcontract by failing to provide the work site on time.
• Ætna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. B. B. B. Const. Corp.
  173 F.2d 307· 2d Cir.· 1949-03-15 ·cited 6×
  A surety on a payment bond is not liable for interest after principal claims are paid if it properly utilized the interpleader action by posting a bond, thus avoiding default.
• United States v. Madsen Const. Co.
  139 F.2d 613· 6th Cir.· 1943-11-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the subcontractor's claims for additional payment were barred by the contract's provisions for finality of the Contracting Officer's decisions and the subcontractor's failure to properly protest or appeal those decisions.
• Humphreys & Harding, Inc. v. Dist. OF Columbia
  293 F.2d 150· D.C. Cir.· 1961-06-01 ·cited 2×
  A supplier of specially treated materials, used in public construction, can recover on the prime contractor's payment bond even without a direct contractual relationship with the prime contractor.
• United States v. Clifford F. MacEVOY Co.
  137 F.2d 565· 3d Cir.· 1943-08-13 ·cited 2×
  The Miller Act's payment bond protects suppliers of materials to a materialman, even without a direct contractual relationship with the prime contractor.
• United States v. John A. Johnson & Sons
  236 F.2d 864· 3d Cir.· 1956-09-06 ·cited 1×
  The court held that services for dismantling, transporting, and mounting a steam shovel for shipment are covered by the Miller Act payment bond.
• United States v. J. W. Bateson Co., Inc.
  D.D.C.· 1977-01-28
  The court held that a sub-subcontractor's employees, through union trustees, can claim against a Miller Act payment bond if the sub-subcontractor performed work integral to the prime contract and had a substantial relationship with the prime contractor, allowing the prime contrac
• Boka Elec. Constr. Co., Inc. v. W. M. Chappell, Inc.
  262 F.2d 718· D.C. Cir.· 1958-12-24
  A supplier of labor and materials to a subcontractor is entitled to recover under the prime contractor's bond, even without a direct contractual relationship with the prime contractor, provided the labor or materials were used in the project.