Materialman S Lien - Judgment Search Results
Penn Central Transportation Co. Vs. New York City
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-26-1978
just compensation. See also Armstrong v. United States, 364 U. S. 40 (1960) (Government's complete destruction of a materialman's lien in certain property held a "taking"); Hudson Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U. S. 349 , 209
Ruckelshaus Vs. Monsanto Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-26-1984
e.g., Armstrong v. United States, 364 U. S. 40 , 364 U. S. 44 , 46 (1960) (materialman's lien provided for under Maine law protected by Taking Clause); Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U. … Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. - 467 U.S. 986 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984) Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. No. 83-196 Argued February 27,
international Steel and Iron Co. Vs. National Surety Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-30-1936
be deprived without such impairment, the court disposed of the appellant's contention thus: "If we concede that the materialman's lien in the one instance, or his recourse on the bond in the other instance, enters into his
18-section briefs on any result in this list
industrial Accid. Comm'n Vs. James Rolph Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-25-1924
more serious injury would result to commerce than could have been inflicted by the Washington statute authorizing a materialman's lien condemned in The Roanoke [189 U.S. 185]. The legislature exceeded its authority in attempting to extend the
Southern Pacific Co. Vs. Jensen
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-21-1917
more serious injury would result to commerce than could have been inflicted by the Washington statute authorizing a materialman's lien, condemned in The Roanoke. The legislature exceeded its authority in attempting to extend the statute under consideration
Piedmont and Georges Co. Vs. Seaboard Fisheries Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Oct-11-1920
of them, if they were actually obtained, and if they were furnished upon her credit. The mechanic's and materialman's lien, on the other hand, attaches ordinarily although the labor and material cannot be said to have been
Roberts Vs. Sea-land Services, Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-20-2012
U. S. 1, 28 (1991) (Rehnquist, C. J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (“Materialman’s and mechanic’s lien statutes award an interest in real property to workers”). Similarly, this Court has described an employee’s survivors as … Roberts v. Sea-Land Services, Inc. NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in
Connecticut Vs. Doehr
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-06-1991
present one, where the plaintiff had no preexisting interest in the real property which he sought to attach. Materialman's and mechanic's lien statutes award an interest in real property to workers who have contributed their labor, and
Moran Vs. Sturges
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-26-1894
sitting in the admiralty, in a proceeding to Page 154 U. S. 279 enforce the lien of a materialman, but declined to then order the libel to be dismissed, as "the state process may be so terminated
Tucker Vs. Alexandroff
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-06-1902
the mechanic's lien law of the state for labor and materials furnished in her construction, or if a materialman had filed a libel in admiralty against her for coal furnished in testing her engines, or if upon
Hover bars for counts · drag or use +/− to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free