United States of America for the Use and Benefit of Kelly-Mohrhusen Co., Inc., a Wisconsin Corporation v. Merle A. Patnode Co., Limited

How courts have described this case

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

• “ ‘[T]here exists a writing from which, in connection with oral testimony, it plainly appears that the nature and state of the indebtedness was brought home to the general contractor.' ”
• oral notice of subcontractor's name as the party for which the labor was performed and written notice which failed to reference subcontractor's name together are sufficient notice under Miller Act
• “[w]e believe that the letter in this case (which expressly referred to the telephone conversation), together with the other facts, including the general contractor’s knowledge of the identity of the roofing contractor, satisfied the ‘substantial accuracy’ requirement of the statute.”
• written letter supplemented by oral communication and general knowledge of defendant
• verbal communication augmenting deficient written notice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).