In the 1962 case Moseley, Doing Business As Moseley Plumbing & Heating Co., v. Electronic & Missile Facilities, Inc., et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of subcontractor Moseley. The dispute arose when prime contractor Electronic and Missile Facilities (EMF) failed to pay for work completed by subcontractor Moseley on a federal construction project due to financial difficulties. EMF had obtained a payment bond from its surety company as required under the Miller Act but did not list all its subcontractors including Moseley as beneficiaries. When EMF defaulted on payments, Mosely sued both parties for recovery of unpaid dues. The court held that even though Mosely was not listed as a beneficiary in the bond agreement between EMF and its surety company, it could still recover payments directly from them under provisions of the Miller Act which protects rights of suppliers who provide labor or materials for federal projects against non-payment risks.

In the dissenting opinion for Moseley v. Electronic & Missile Facilities, Inc., Justice Hugo Black disagreed with the majority's ruling that a subcontractor could not recover payment from a prime contractor under the Miller Act unless it had provided notice within 90 days of last performing work or delivering materials. He argued that this interpretation was too narrow and did not align with Congress' intent when passing the Act. According to him, Congress intended to protect subcontractors by ensuring they were paid for their labor and materials, regardless of whether they complied strictly with procedural requirements such as providing timely notice. Furthermore, he pointed out that there was no evidence in this case suggesting any harm or prejudice caused by late notice delivery; thus punishing non-compliance seemed unjustified.