MACRI ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES FOR THE USE OF SCHAEFER, DOING BUSINESS AS CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION CO., ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Genet v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 150 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
  …., 121 Fla. 683, 164 So. 551, 103 A.L.R. 725. . 1 Atkins, Fla.Real Estate Law and Procedure (1959) § 17.06; 4 Thompson, Real Property (1961) § 1874. . See: Board of Com’rs of Oklahoma County v. Russell, 10th Cir. 1949, 174 F. 2d 778, cert. denied, 338 U.S. 820, 70 S.Ct. 64, 94 L.Ed. 498; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. City of Marshall, 136 U.S. 393, 10 S.Ct. 846, 34 L.Ed. 385 (1890); Mead v. Ballard, 7 Wall. 290, 74 U.S. 290, 19 L.Ed. 190 (1869).…
• United States for the Use & Benefit of T.M.S. Mech. Contractors, Inc. v. Millers Mut. Fire Ins. Co. OF Tex., 942 F.2d 946 (5th Cir. 1991)
  …ulation Co. v. Robert E. McKee, Inc., 702 F.Supp. 1298 (N.D.Tex. 1988), while others focus on the terms of the contract, e.g. Continental Casualty Co. v. Schaefer, 173 F. 2d 5 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 337 U.S. 940, 69 S.Ct. 1517, 93 L.Ed. 1745 and, 338 U.S. 820, 70 S.Ct. 63, 94 L.Ed. 497 (1949). To qualify for a Miller Act lien, however, the claimant must come within the explicit nomenclature of the Miller Act. We thus believe that the language of the statute, interpreted in light of its protective purpose…