Highland Renovation Corp. v. Hanover Insurance Group

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that whether plaintiff’s claim 8 was time barred was a “discrete legal issue” that the court may decide in a converted motion to dismiss “without providing notice or the opportunity for discovery to the parties”
• noting that “other courts have ruled that the Miller Act’s one-year limitations period is not accurately described as jurisdictional, but instead is a condition precedent to bringing an action under the Miller Act that a plaintiff must satisfy.”
• “A plaintiff cannot survive a 11 timeliness challenge without specific evidence of original contract work being performed within 12 the one-year limit.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).