As I mentioned the other day, Featherweight Scala has a typing rule that allows assigning a path (x.l1...ln) a singleton type:
Γ ⊦ p : T
Γ ⊦ p : p.type
(I should note that for some stupid reason WordPress seems to prevent MathML from working, making the rather pleasant <mfrac> tag useless). This is essentially the rule that everyone else uses, but in all the other literature I've looked at (other than νObj) the singleton is labeled with T (something like ST(p)) or T must have a specific type (int, base, etc.).
As I pointed out, Featherweight Scala's version of the rule makes it difficult to write meaningful inversion lemmas. Secondly, the naïve subject reduction theorem that could be obtained would be something like:
If Γ ⊦ t : T and t → t' then exists some T' such that Γ ⊦ t' : T'.
Which feels rather unsatisfactory. Given the subsumption rule for singletons
Γ ⊦ p : T
Γ ⊦ p.type <: T
It is plausible that a variant of the theorem where T is a subtype of T' would hold, but that would run counter to the expectations that reduction will only allow us to more precisely characterize the type of result. Thinking about it I suppose it might be reasonable to state the theorem as
If Γ ⊦ t : T and t → t' then there exists some T' such that Γ ⊦ t' : T' and
if there exists some p such that T = p.type then Γ ⊦ p : T', otherwise Γ ⊦ T' <: T.
Which I am starting to believe is the best that could be proven. This theorem nicely captures the discontinuities in subject reduction introduced by singleton types. You keep making steps getting a more and more precise type, and then suddenly you "jump" from one type to another, followed by some period where the type becomes more refined, then another "jump", and so forth.
These discontinuities are quite a problem, because it means that after taking a step it may not be possible in some cases to put the resulting term back into an evaluation context and remain well-typed.
νObj , the predecessor to Featherweight Scala, has nearly the same problem, but the language has been constructed just right so that typing always becomes more precise. The same changes cannot be made to Featherweight Scala and retain the property that the language is a subset of Scala. Aspinall's original work  on on singleton types makes use of an erasure predicate, but his singletons are labeled with a type making its definition trivial. Stone and Harper's work on singleton types  solves the problem by using a subject reduction theorem that looks roughly like
If Γ ⊦ t : T and t → t' then that Γ ⊦ t = t' : T.
but I am not sure there is a pleasant notion of term equality in Featherweight Scala, because all reductions either consult the heap or extend it. Singletons are also slightly more tractable in their setting because they require any term being used as a singleton type to have the base type "b".
 Martin Odersky, Vincent Cremet, Christine Röckl, and Matthias Zenger. A Nominal Theory of Objects with Dependent Types. Tech report 2002.
 David Aspinall. Subtyping with singleton types. CSL 1994
 Christopher Stone and Robert Harper. Extensional equivalence and singleton types. ACM TOCL 2006.