Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Court: us supreme court Page 99 of about 9,212 results (0.137 seconds)

Jun 07 1982 (FN)

Jackson Transit Auth. Vs. Transit Union

Court : US Supreme Court

..... j., dissenting). because a federal court should exercise extreme caution before assuming jurisdiction not clearly conferred by congress, we should not condone the implication of federal jurisdiction over contract claims in the absence of an unambiguous expression of congressional intent. as i do not view this position as inconsistent with the reasoning of the court, i join its ..... footnote 5 ] several courts of appeals, in addition to the sixth circuit, have decided that 13(c) authorizes federal suits for violations of 13(c) agreements and collective bargaining contracts between recipients of umta funds and transit unions. division 587, amalgamated transit union, afl-cio v. municipality of metropolitan seattle, 663 f.2d 875 (ca9 1981); local div. ..... those arrangements; it specifies five different varieties of protective provisions that must be included among the 13(c) arrangements; and it expressly incorporates the protective arrangements into the grant contract between the recipient and the federal government. [ footnote 7 ] see n 2, supra. on the other hand, labor relations between local governments and their employees are ..... 457 u. s. 18 are the preservation of benefits under existing collective bargaining agreements and the continuation of collective bargaining rights. the protective arrangements must be specified in the contract granting federal aid. [ footnote 2 ] b in 1966, petitioner city of jackson, tenn., applied for federal aid to convert a failing private bus company into a .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 1982 (FN)

North Haven Bd. of Educ. Vs. Bell

Court : US Supreme Court

..... provides in full: "each federal department and agency which is empowered to extend federal financial assistance to any education program or activity, by way of grant, loan, or contract other than a contract of insurance or guaranty, is authorized and directed to effectuate the provisions of section 901 with respect to such program or activity by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of ..... the benefits of," or "subjected to discrimination under" education programs receiving federal financial support. employees who directly participate in federal programs or who directly benefit from federal grants, loans, or contracts clearly fall within the first two protective categories described in 901(a). see islesboro school comm. v. califano, 593 f.2d 424, 426 (ca1), cert. denied, 444 u.s. 972 ..... the trumbull school district. potz alleged that trumbull had discriminated against her on the basis of gender with respect to job assignments, working conditions, and the failure to renew her contract. in september, 1978, hew notified trumbull that it had violated title ix and warned that corrective action, including respondent's reinstatement, must be taken. trumbull then filed suit in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 1982 (FN)

Merrion Vs. Jicarilla Apache Tribe

Court : US Supreme Court

..... which also may derive from different sources. these differences, however, do not alter the principles for determining whether any of these governments has waived a sovereign power through contract, and we perceive no principled reason for holding that the different attributes of indian sovereignty require different treatment in this regard. without regard to its source, sovereign power ..... , even when unexercised, is an enduring presence that governs all contracts subject to the sovereign's jurisdiction, and will remain intact unless surrendered in unmistakable terms. no claim is asserted in this litigation, nor could one be, that petitioners ..... civilized tribes that required non-indians to pay annual permit fees. the complainants owned cattle and horses that were grazing on land in the chickasaw nation pursuant to contracts with individual members of the tribe. complainants filed suit in the district of columbia seeking an injunction preventing federal officials from removing their cattle and horses from ..... nation or tribe within the territory of the united states shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the united states may contract by treaty: provided, further, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to invalidate or impair the obligation of any treaty heretofore lawfully made and ratified with any .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 1982 (FN)

Kaiser Steel Corp. Vs. Mullins

Court : US Supreme Court

..... action brought directly against the union. "the employer may still have its claims adjudicated by bringing, in the proper forum, a timely suit against the union for rescission of the contract, antitrust damages, or a declaration that an unfair labor practice has been committed. . . ." huge, supra, at 465 (concurring opinion). [ footnote 2/5 ] section 306(a) simply ..... the defense of illegality. respondents' reliance on lewis v. benedict coal corp., 361 u. s. 459 (1960), is no more persuasive. there, as here, a collective bargaining contract bound the coal company to contribute to an employee trust fund. when sued by the trustees for delinquent contributions, the employers defended on the ground that the union had violated ..... purchased coal would be to enforce a bargain that violates two different federal statutes, the sherman act and the nlra. sections 1 and 2 of the sherman act prohibit contracts, combinations, and conspiracies in restraint of trade, as well as monopolization and attempts to monopolize. kaiser urges that the purchased coal clause is illegal under these sections because ..... represented by the redstone workers' association, and their wages and benefits during the period covered by the 1974 agreement were equal or superior to those required by the umw contract. nevertheless, the umw has repeatedly attempted to become the collective bargaining representative for mid-continent's employees. according to affidavits submitted by kaiser, the purchased coal clause was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 1983 (FN)

Arizona Governing Comm. Vs. Norris

Court : US Supreme Court

..... arizona's voluntary plan violates title vii. in the majority's view, title vii requires an employer to follow one of three courses. an employer must provide unisex annuities itself, contract with insurance companies to provide such annuities, or provide no annuities to its employees. ante at 463 u. s. 1091 (marshall, j., concurring in judgment in part). the ..... from a company designated by the retirement plan. rev.rul. 72-25, 1972-1 cum.bull. 127; rev.rul. 68-99, 1968-1 cum. bull 193. accordingly, arizona contracts with private insurance companies to make life annuities available to its employees. the companies that underwrite the life annuities, as do the vast majority of private insurance companies in the ..... they would supply retirement benefits [ footnote 19 ] and selected the companies that were permitted to participate in the plan. once the state selected these companies, it entered into contracts with them governing the terms on which benefits were to be provided to employees. employees enrolling in the plan could obtain retirement benefits only from one of those companies, and ..... the arizona department of economic security, elected to participate in the plan. she requested that her deferred compensation be invested in the lincoln national life insurance co.'s fixed annuity contract. shortly thereafter, arizona approved respondent's request and began withholding $199.50 from her salary each month. on april 25, 1978, after exhausting administrative remedies, respondent brought suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 24 1983 (FN)

Franchise Tax Bd. Vs. Construction Laborers

Court : US Supreme Court

..... view of who may sue under 301 for violations of such contracts, see, e.g., smith v. evening news assn., 371 u. s. 195 (1962); lewis v. benedict coal corp., 361 u. s. 459 (1960); ..... 499, 501-502 (ca8 1964) (blackmun, j.). [ footnote 28 ] in contrast, 301(a) of the lmra applies to all "[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce . . . or between any such labor organizations." we have not taken a restrictive ..... as to displace entirely any state cause of action "for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization." [ footnote 25 ] any such suit is purely a creature of federal law, notwithstanding the fact that ..... 301, and thus could be removed to federal court, although the petitioner had undoubtedly pleaded an adequate claim for relief under the state law of contracts and had sought a remedy available only under state law. the necessary ground of decision was that the preemptive force of 301 is so powerful ..... avco corp. v. aero lodge no. 75. in that case, the petitioner filed suit in state court alleging simply that it had a valid contract with the respondent, a union, under which the respondent had agreed to submit all grievances to binding arbitration and not to cause or sanction any " .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 1983 (FN)

ins Vs. Chadha

Court : US Supreme Court

..... be disapproved by resolution of either house) (acquisition by sfc of a synthetic fuels project which is receiving financial assistance may be disapproved by resolution of either house) (sfc contract renegotiations exceeding initial cost estimates by 175% may be disapproved by resolution of either house) (proposed financial assistance to synthetic fuel projects in western hemisphere outside united states may be ..... synthetic fuels development, and individual contracts to purchase more than 75,000 barrels per day, including use of loans or guarantees, may be disapproved by resolution of either house) (procedures for either house to disapprove ..... to provide loans or guarantees in excess page 462 u. s. 1008 of established amounts may be disapproved by resolution of either house) (proposed award by president of individual contracts for purchase of more than 75,000 barrels per day of crude oil may be disapproved by resolution of either house) (president's proposals to overcome energy shortage through ..... foreign hostilities.)" "3. department of defense appropriation authorization act, 1974, pub.l. no. 93-155, 807, 87 stat. 605, 615 (1973), 50 u.s.c. 1431 (national defense contracts obligating the united states for any amount in excess of $25,000,000 may be disapproved by resolution of either house). " page 462 u. s. 1004 "4. department of defense .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 08 1983 (FN)

Delcostello Vs. Teamsters

Court : US Supreme Court

..... upon employers and unions the power to establish exclusive grievance procedures, intended to confer upon unions . . . unlimited discretion to deprive injured employees of all remedies for breach of contract." id. at 386 u. s. 186 . but nothing in the language, structure, or legislative history of the national labor relations act compels the further conclusion that congress intended ..... the main difference is that a party to commercial arbitration will ordinarily be represented by counsel or, at least, will have some experience in matters of commercial dealings and contract negotiation. moreover, an action to vacate a commercial arbitral award will rarely raise any issues not already presented and contested in the arbitration proceeding itself. in the labor ..... . page 462 u. s. 165 'to prevail against either the company or the union, . . . [employee-plaintiffs] must not only show that their discharge was contrary to the contract, but must also carry the burden of demonstrating breach of duty by the union.'" mitchell, supra, at 451 u. s. 66 -67 (stewart, j., concurring in judgment), quoting ..... statute of limitations for actions to vacate arbitration awards. [ footnote 4 ] the district court disagreed, holding that the applicable statute was the 3-year state statute for actions on contracts. [ footnote 5 ] 510 f.supp. 716 (1981). on reconsideration following our decision in mitchell, however, the court granted summary judgment for respondents, concluding that mitchell compelled application .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 1983 (FN)

Jim Mcneff, Inc. Vs. Todd

Court : US Supreme Court

..... vacation-holiday trust; (4) apprentice trust; (5) journeyman training trust; and (6) industry fund trust. id. at 13. [ footnote 5 ] section 301(a) provides: "suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this act, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any ..... to enforce overdue obligations accrued under a prehire agreement prior to its repudiation vindicates the policies congress intended to implement in 8(f). congress clearly determined that prehire contracts should be lawful to meet problems unique to the construction industry. however limited the binding effect of a prehire agreement may be, it strains both logic and equity ..... intended by congress, that employers and minority unions in the construction industry do not violate the act by entering into prehire agreements. there is no sense in which respondents' contract action has a recognitional purpose like that forbidden in higdon. neither does respondents' 301 action trench on the voluntary and voidable characteristics of a 8(f) prehire agreement. ..... bargaining agent, or trench on the voluntary and voidable characteristics of a 8(f) prehire agreement. allowing an action such as respondents' vindicates congress' policies in authorizing prehire contracts to meet problems unique to the construction industry. when a 8(f) agreement is voluntarily executed, as here, both parties must abide by its terms until it is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 1983 (FN)

Smith Vs. Wade

Court : US Supreme Court

smith v. wade - 461 u.s. 30 (1983) u.s. supreme court smith v. wade, 461 u.s. 30 (1983) smith v. wade no. 81-1196 argued november 10, 1982 decided april 20, 1983 461 u.s. 30 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit syllabus respondent, while an inmate in a missouri reformatory for youthful first offenders, was harassed, beaten, and sexually assaulted by his cellmates. he brought suit under 42 u.s.c. 1983 in federal district court against petitioner, a guard at the reformatory, and others, alleging that his eighth amendment rights had been violated. because of petitioner's qualified immunity, as a prison guard, from 1983 liability, the trial judge instructed the jury that respondent could recover only if petitioner was guilty of "gross negligence" or "egregious failure to protect" respondent. the judge also charged the jury that it could award punitive damages in addition to actual damages if petitioner's conduct was shown to be "a reckless or callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights or safety of others." the district court entered judgment on a verdict finding petitioner liable and awarding both compensatory and punitive damages. the court of appeals affirmed. held: 1. punitive damages are available in a proper case under 1983. while there is little in the legislative history of 1 of the civil rights act of 1871 (from which 1983 is derived) concerning the damages recoverable for the tort liability created by the statute, the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //