State v. R. E. F. (In re R. E. F.)

How courts have described this case

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

• warnings of the contractor’s payment deficiencies from subcontractors and suppliers to the government does not substitute for Miller Act surety’s notice to trigger stakeholder duty; “[t]he Government’s independent knowledge of contractor default is irrelevant.”
• “Because United Surety became a performing and paying surety for Selpa, United Surety has satisfied the jurisdictional requirements of the Tucker Act under the doctrine of equitable subrogation.”
• “The Government’s independent knowledge of contractor default is irrelevant.”
• “A ... surety has standing to maintain an action in the United States Court of Federal Claims, if the surety: (1) asserts its own rights under a takeover agreement between the surety and the Government ...; or (2) invokes the doctrine of equitable subrogation.” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).