Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Court: us supreme court Year: 1994 Page 2 of about 58 results (0.238 seconds)

Jan 10 1994 (FN)

United States Vs. Granderson

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-10-1994

united states v. granderson - 511 u.s. 39 (1994) october term, 1993 syllabus united states v. granderson certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit no. 92-1662. argued january 10, 1994-decided march 22,1994 respondent granderson, a letter carrier, pleaded guilty to one count of destruction of mail. the potential imprisonment range for that crime was 0-6 months under the united states sentencing guidelines. the district court imposed no prison time, sentencing granderson instead to five years' probation and a fine. after granderson tested positive for cocaine, the court resentenced him under 18 u. s. c. 3565(a), which provides that if a person serving a sentence of probation possesses illegal drugs, "the court shall revoke the sentence of probation and sentence the defendant to not less than one-third of the original sentence." accepting the government's reading of the statute, the district court concluded that the phrase "original sentence" referred to the term of probation actually imposed (60 months), rather than the 0-6 month imprisonment range authorized by the guidelines. accordingly, that court resentenced granderson to 20 months' imprisonment. the court of appeals upheld the revocation of granderson's probation, but vacated his new sentence. invoking the rule of lenity, the court agreed with granderson that "original sentence" referred to the potential imprisonment range under the guidelines, not to the actual probation sentence. because .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 1994 (FN)

Brown Vs. Gardner

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Oct-31-1994

..... resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, ... during other than a period of war," is compensable) with 38 cfr 3.310(a) (1993) ("disability which is ..... to impose any fault requirement. compare 38 u. s. c. 1110 (1988 ed., supp. v) ("disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, 119 or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, ... during a period of war," is compensable) and 38 u. s. c. 1131 (1988 ed., supp. v) ("disability .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 1994 (FN)

Federal Election Comm'n Vs. NRA Political Victory Fund

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Oct-11-1994

federal election comm'n v. nra political victory fund - 513 u.s. 88 (1994) october term, 1994 syllabus federal election commission v. nra political victory fund et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit no.93-1151. argued october 11, 1994-decided december 6,1994 petitioner federal election commission (fec) brought this civil action against respondents seeking to enforce a provision of the federal election campaign act of 1971 (feca). the district court ruled against respondents. the court of appeals reversed and entered its judgment on october 22, 1993. without first seeking or obtaining the solicitor general's authorization, the fec filed in its own name a petition for a writ of certiorari on january 18, 1994, two days before the expiration of the 90-day filing period mandated by 28 u. s. c. 2101(c). the united states filed a brief contending that the fec lacked statutory authority to represent itself in this case in this court, but that, pursuant to 28 u. s. c. 518(a) and its implementing regulation, the solicitor general had authorized the fec's petition by letter dated may 26, 1994. this authorization came more than 120 days after the 2101(c) filing deadline had passed. the fec filed a brief in response asserting that it has independent statutory authority to represent itself in this court. held: 1. the fec may not independently file a petition for certiorari in this court under 2 u. s. c. 437d(a)(6). that statute .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 1994 (FN)

Waters Vs. Churchill

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-31-1994

..... causal connection between the employee's speech and her discharge is all the "retaliation" that must be shown. see perry, 408 u. s., at 598 (nonrenewal of a teacher's contract "may not be predicated on his exercise of first and fourteenth amendment rights"); ibid. ("[a] teacher's public criticism of his superiors on matters of public concern may be constitutionally ..... fundamental constitutional right than the law ordinarily provides for less exalted rights, including contractual and statutory rights applicable in the private sector. if, for example, a hospital employee had a contract providing that she could retain her job for a year if she followed the employer's rules and did competent work, that employee ion review of the court of appeals ..... actor assumes the risk that an impartial adjudicator may come to a different conclusion." post, at 696. but that is true in contractual realms only to the extent that the contract provides a "right" whose elimination constitutes a legal "detriment." an employee dismissable at will can 692 scalia, j., concurring in judgment be fired on the basis of an erroneous factual ..... complaints are hearsay. it is true that these practices involve some risk of erroneously punishing protected speech. the government may certainly choose to adopt other practices, by law or by contract. but we do not believe that the first amendment requires it to do so. government employers should be allowed to use personnel procedures that differ from the evidentiary 677 rules .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 23 1994 (FN)

Nlrb Vs. Health Care and Retirement Corp. of America

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-23-1994

..... he shall not sit on the side of the employee, but shall sit on the side of the employer .... no man can serve two masters. if you are negotiating a contract, a lawyer does not represent both clients. that is all that is involved here." 596 the court does not deny that the phrase "in the interest of the employer" was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 1994 (FN)

Fogerty Vs. Fantasy, Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-01-1994

fogerty v. fantasy, inc. - 510 u.s. 517 (1994) october term, 1993 syllabus fogerty v. fantasy, inc. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit no. 92-1750. argued december 8, 1993-decided march 1, 1994 mter petitioner fogerty's successful defense of a copyright infringement action filed against him by respondent fantasy, inc., the district court denied his motion for attorney's fees pursuant to 17 u. s. c. 505, which provides in relevant part that in such an action "the court may ... award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs." the court of appeals affirmed, declining to abandon its "dual" standard for awarding 505 fees-under which prevailing plaintiffs are generally awarded attorney's fees as a matter of course, while defendants must show that the original suit was frivolous or brought in bad faith-in favor of the so-called "evenhanded" approach, in which no distinction is made between prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants. held: prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants must be treated alike under 505; attorney's fees are to be awarded to prevailing parties only as a matter of the court's discretion. pp. 522-535. (a) fantasy's arguments in favor of a dual standard are rejected. section 505's language gives no hint that successful plaintiffs are to be treated differently than successful defendants. nor does this court's decision in christiansburg garment co. v. eeoc, 434 u. s. 412 , which .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 1994 (FN)

Weiss Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-19-1994

weiss v. united states - 510 u.s. 163 (1994) october term, 1993 syllabus weiss v. united states certiorari to the united states court of military appeals no. 92-1482. argued november 3, 1993-decided january 19, 1994* mter courts-martial sentenced petitioners weiss and hernandez, united states marines, on their pleas of guilty to offenses under the uniform code of military justice (ucmj), their convictions were affirmed by the navy-marine corps court of military review in separate appeals. in affirming weiss' conviction, the court of military appeals rejected his contentions, first, that military trial and appellate judges have no authority to convict because the method of their appointment by the various judge advocates general under the ucmj violates the appointments clause, u. s. const., art. ii, 2, cl. 2, and, second, that such judges' lack of a fixed term of office violates the fifth amendment's due process clause. based on this decision, the court summarily affirmed hernandez' conviction. held: 1. the current method of appointing military judges does not violate the appointments clause, which, inter alia, requires the president to appoint "officers of the united states" with the advice and consent of the senate. all of the military judges involved in these cases were already commissioned military officers when they were assigned to serve as judges, and thus they had already been appointed pursuant to the clause. the position of military judge is not so different from .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 1994 (FN)

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. Vs. Fcc

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-12-1994

turner broadcasting system, inc. v. fcc - 512 u.s. 622 (1994) october term, 1993 syllabus turner broadcasting system, inc., et al. v. federal communications commission et al. appeal from the united states district court for the district of columbia no. 93-44. argued january 12, 1994-decided june 27,1994 concerned that a competitive imbalance between cable television and over-the-air broadcasters was endangering the broadcasters' ability to compete for a viewing audience and thus for necessary operating revenues, congress passed the cable television consumer protection and competition act of 1992. sections 4 and 5 of the act require cable television systems to devote a specified portion of their channels to the transmission of local commercial and public broadcast stations. soon after the act became law, appellants, numerous cable programmers and operators, challenged the constitutionality of the must-carry provisions. the district court granted the united states and intervenordefendants summary judgment, ruling that the provisions are consistent with the first amendment. the court rejected appellants' argument that the provisions warrant strict scrutiny as a content-based regulation and sustained them under the intermediate standard of scrutiny set forth in united states v. o'brien, 391 u. s. 367 , concluding that they are sufficiently tailored to serve the important governmental interest in the preservation of local broadcasting. held: the judgment is vacated, and the case .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 1994 (FN)

Ratzlaf Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-11-1994

ratzlaf v. united states - 510 u.s. 135 (1994) october term, 1993 syllabus ratzlaf et ux. v. united states certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit no. 92-1196. argued november 1, 1993-decided january 11, 1994 as here relevant, federal law requires a domestic bank involved in a cash transaction exceeding $10,000 to file a report with the secretary of the treasury, 31 u. s. c. 5313(a), 31 cfr 103.22(a); makes it illegal to "structure" a transaction-i. e., to break up a single transaction above the reporting threshold into two or more separate transactions-"for the purpose of evading the reporting requiremen[t]," 31 u. s. c. 5324(3); and sets out criminal penalties for "[a] person willfully violating" the antistructuring provision, 5322(a). mter the judge at petitioner waldemar ratzlaf's trial on charges of violating 5322(a) and 5324(3) instructed the jury that the government had to prove both that the defendant knew of the 5313(a) reporting obligation and that he attempted to evade that obligation, but did not have to prove that he knew the structuring in which he engaged was unlawful, ratzlaf was convicted, fined, and sentenced to prison. in affirming, the court of appeals upheld the trial court's construction of the legislation. held: to give effect to 5322(a)'s "willfulness" requirement, the government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that the structuring he or she undertook was unlawful, not simply that the defendant's .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 1994 (FN)

Nichols Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-06-1994

nichols v. united states - 511 u.s. 738 (1994) october term, 1993 syllabus nichols v. united states certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit no. 92-8556. argued january 10, 1994-decided june 6, 1994 mter petitioner nichols pleaded guilty to federal felony drug charges, he was assessed criminal history points under the united states sentencing guidelines, including one point for a state misdemeanor conviction for driving while under the influence (dui), for which he was fined but not incarcerated. that point increased the maximum sentence of imprisonment from 210 to 235 months. petitioner objected to the inclusion of his dui conviction, arguing that because he had not been represented by counsel in that proceeding, considering it in establishing his sentence would violate the sixth amendment as construed in baldasar v. illinois, 446 u. s. 222 . however, the district court reasoned that baldasar lacked a majority opinion and thus stood only for the proposition that a prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction may not be used to create a felony with a prison term. since petitioner's offense was already defined as a felony, the court ruled that baldasar was inapplicable and sentenced petitioner to a term of imprisonment 25 months longer than it could have been had the dui conviction not been considered. the court of appeals affirmed. held: consistent with the sixth and fourteenth amendments, a sentencing court may consider a defendant's previous .....

Tag this Judgment!


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