Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Court: us supreme court Year: 2000 Page 2 of about 43 results (0.109 seconds)

Feb 23 2000 (FN)

Pegram Vs. Herdrich

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-23-2000

..... co., inc. (collectively carle), function as a health maintenance organization (hmo) organized for profit. its owners are physicians providing prepaid medical services to participants whose employers contract with carle to provide such coverage. respondent, cynthia herdrich, was covered by carle through her husband's employer, state farm insurance company. the events in question began ..... fiduciary function when taking the action subject to complaint. pp. 222-226. (c) herdrich claims that carle became a fiduciary, acting through its physicians, when it contracted with state farm. it then breached its duty to act solely in the beneficiaries' interest, making decisions affecting medical treatment while influenced by a scheme under which the ..... and the meaning of herdrich's allegations. the defining feature of an hmo is receipt of a fixed fee for each patient enrolled under the terms of a contract to provide specified health care if needed. like other risk bearing organizations, hmos take steps to control costs. these measures are commonly complemented by specific financial incentives ..... 23, 2000-decided june 12,2000 petitioners (collectively carle) function as a health maintenance organization (hmo) owned by physicians providing prepaid medical services to participants whose employers contract with carle for coverage. respondent herdrich was covered by carle through her husband's employer, state farm insurance company. mter petitioner pegram, a carle physician, required herdrich .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 2000 (FN)

Wal-mart Stores, Inc. Vs. Samara Brothers, Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-22-2000

..... called a representative at samara to complain that she had seen samara garments on sale at wal-mart for a lower price than jcpenney was allowed to charge under its contract with samara. the samara representative told the buyer that samara did not supply its clothing to wal-mart. their suspicions aroused, however, samara officials launched an investigation, which disclosed that ..... circuit no. 99-150. argued january 19, 2000-decided march 22, 2000 respondent samara brothers, inc., designs and manufactures a line of children's clothing. petitioner wal-mart stores, inc., contracted with a supplier to manufacture outfits based on photographs of samara garments. mter discovering that wal-mart and other retailers were selling the so-called knockoffs, samara brought this action ..... of spring/summer one-piece seersucker outfits decorated with appliques of hearts, flowers, fruits, and the like. a number of chain stores, including jcpenney, sell this line of clothing under contract with samara. petitioner wal-mart stores, inc., is one of the nation's best known retailers, selling among other things children's clothing. in 1995, wal-mart ..... contracted with one of its suppliers, judy-philippine, inc., to manufacture a line of children's outfits for sale in the 1996 spring/summer season. wal-mart sent judy-philippine photographs .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 2000 (FN)

Fda Vs. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-21-2000

fda v. brown & williamson tobacco corp. - 529 u.s. 120 (2000) october term, 1999 syllabus food and drug administration et al. v. brown & williamson tobacco corp. et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit no. 98-1152. argued december 1, 1999-decided march 21, 2000 the food, drug, and cosmetic act (fdca or act), 21 u. s. c. 301 et seq., grants the food and drug administration (fda), as the designee of the secretary of health and human services (hhs), the authority to regulate, among other items, "drugs" and "devices," 321(g)-(h), 393. in 1996, the fda asserted jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products, concluding that, under the fdca, nicotine is a "drug" and cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are "devices" that deliver nicotine to the body. pursuant to this authority, the fda promulgated regulations governing tobacco products' promotion, labeling, and accessibility to children and adolescents. the fda found that tobacco use is the nation's leading cause of premature death, resulting in more than 400,000 deaths annually, and that most adult smokers begin when they are minors. the regulations therefore aim to reduce tobacco use by minors so as to substantially reduce the prevalence of addiction in future generations, and thus the incidence of tobacco-related death and disease. respondents, a group of tobacco manufacturers, retailers, and advertisers, filed this suit challenging the fda's regulations. they moved for summary judgment on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 29 2000 (FN)

Shalala Vs. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-29-2000

shalala v. illinois council on long term care, inc. - 529 u.s. 1 (2000) cases adjudged in the supreme court of the united states at october term, 1999 syllabus shalala, secretary of health and human services, et al. v. illinois council on long term care, inc. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit no. 98-1109. argued november 8, 1999-decided february 29, 2000 under the medicare act's special review provisions, a nursing home that is "dissatisfied ... with a determination described in subsection (b)(2)" is "entitled to a hearing ... to the same extent as is provided in" the social security act, 42 u. s. c. 405(b), "and to judicial review of the secretary's final decision after such hearing as is provided in section 405(g) .... " 42 u. s. c. 1395cc(h)(1) (emphasis added). the crossreferenced subsection (b)(2) gives petitioner secretary of health and human services (hhs) power to terminate a provider agreement with a home where, for example, she determines that a home has failed to comply substantially with the statute and the regulations. the crossreferenced 405(b) describes the administrative hearing to which a "dissatisfied" home is entitled, and the cross-referenced 405(g) provides that the home may obtain federal district court review of the secretary's "final decision ... made after a hearing .... " section 405(h), a provision of the social security act incorporated into the medicare act by 42 u. s. c. 1395ii, provides that "[n]o action .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 30 2000 (FN)

Lopez Vs. Davis

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Oct-30-2000

lopez v. davis - 531 u.s. 230 (2000) october term, 2000 syllabus lopez v. davis, warden, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit no. 99-7504. argued october 30, 2000-decided january 10,2001 under 18 u. s. c. 3621(e)(2)(b), "[t]he period a [federal] prisoner convicted of a nonviolent offense remains in custody after successfully completing a [substance abuse] treatment program may be reduced by the bureau of prisons" (bop). the bop therefore ranked ineligible for early release all inmates incarcerated for "crime[s] of violence." initially, the bop defined the term "crimes of violence" to include, among other offenses, a drug trafficking conviction under 21 u. s. c. 841, if the offender received a two-level sentence enhancement under united states sentencing commission, guidelines manual (ussg) 2dl.l(b)(1), for possessing a dangerous weapon in connection with the drug offense. the courts of appeals thereafter divided over the validity of classifying drug offenses involving firearms possession as crimes of violence. the circuit division prompted the bop to issue the regulation now before the court. that regulation denies early release to several categories of prisoners, including inmates whose current offense is a felony attended by "the carrying, possession, or use of a firearm." 28 cfr 550.58(a)(1)(vi)(b). the bop rests this denial not on a definition of "crimes of violence," but on the bop's asserted discretion to prescribe additional .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 08 2000 (FN)

United States Vs. Mead Corp.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Nov-08-2000

united states v. mead corp. - 533 u.s. 218 (2000) october term, 2000 syllabus united states v. mead corp. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit no. 99-1434. argued november 8, 2000-decided june 18,2001 the harmonized tariff schedule of the united states authorizes the united states customs service to classify and fix the rate of duty on imports, under rules and regulations issued by the secretary of the treasury. as relevant here, the secretary provides for tariff rulings before the entry of goods by regulations authorizing "ruling letters" setting tariff classifications for particular imports. any of the 46 portof-entry customs offices and the customs headquarters office may issue such letters. respondent imports "day planners," three-ring binders with pages for daily schedules, phone numbers and addresses, a calendar, and suchlike. mter classifying the planners as duty free for several years, customs headquarters issued a ruling letter classifying them as bound diaries subject to tariff. mead filed suit in the court of international trade, which granted the government summary judgment. in reversing, the federal circuit found that ruling letters should not be treated like customs regulations, which receive the highest level of deference under chevron us. a. inc. v. natural resources defense council, inc., 467 u. s. 837 , because they are not preceded by notice and comment as under the administrative procedure act (apa), do not carry the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 30 2000 (FN)

Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. Vs. Union Planters Bank, N.Andnbsp;A.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-30-2000

..... does not leave those who provide goods or services that benefit secured interests without other means of protecting themselves as against other creditors: they may insist on cash payment, or contract directly with the secured creditor, and may be able to obtain superpriority under 364(c)(1) or a security interest under 364(c)(2), (3), or 364(d). and of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 2000 (FN)

United States Vs. Locke

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-06-2000

united states v. locke - 529 u.s. 89 (2000) october term, 1999 syllabus united states v. locke, governor of washington, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit no.98-1701. argued december 7, 1999-decided march 6, 2000* mter the supertanker torrey canyon spilled crude oil off the coast of england in 1967, both congress, in the ports and waterways safety act of 1972 (pwsa), and the state of washington enacted more stringent regulations for tankers and provided for more comprehensive remedies in the event of an oil spill. the ensuing question of federal pre-emption of the state's laws was addressed in ray v. atlantic richfield co., 435 u. s. 151. in 1989, the supertanker exxon valdez ran aground in alaska, causing the largest oil spill in united states history. again, both congress and washington responded. congress enacted the oil pollution act of 1990 (opa). the state created a new agency and directed it to establish standards to provide the "best achievable protection" (bap) from oil spill damages. that agency promulgated tanker design, equipment, reporting, and operating requirements. petitioner international association of independent tanker owners (intertanko), a trade association of tanker operators, brought this suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against state and local officials responsible for enforcing the bap regulations. upholding the regulations, the district court rejected intertanko's arguments that the bap .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 2000 (FN)

Reno Vs. Bossier Parish School Bd.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-24-2000

reno v. bossier parish school bd. - 528 u.s. 320 (2000) october term, 1999 syllabus reno, attorney general v. bossier parish school board appeal from the united states district court for the district of columbia no. 98-405. argued april 26, 1999-reargued october 6, 1999-decided january 24, 2000* bossier parish, louisiana, a jurisdiction covered by 5 of the voting rights act of 1965, is thereby prohibited from enacting any change in a "voting qualification[,] prerequisite[,] standard, practice, or procedure" without first obtaining preclearance from either the attorney general or the district court. when, following the 1990 census, the bossier parish school board (board) submitted a proposed redistricting plan to the attorney general, she denied preclearance. the board then filed this preclearance action in the district court. section 5 authorizes preclearance of a proposed voting change that "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color." appellants conceded that the board's plan did not have a prohibited "effect" under 5, since it was not "retrogressive," i. e., did not worsen the position of minority voters, see beer v. united states, 425 u. s. 130 , but claimed that it violated 5 because it was enacted for a discriminatory "purpose." the district court granted preclearance. on appeal, this court disagreed with the district court's proposition that all evidence of a dilutive (but .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 18 2000 (FN)

Miller Vs. French

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-18-2000

miller v. french - 530 u.s. 327 (2000) october term, 1999 syllabus miller, superintendent, pendleton correctional facility, et al. v. french et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit no. 99-224. argued april 18, 2000-decided june 19,2000* in 1975, prison inmates at indiana's pendleton correctional facility brought a class action, and the district court issued an injunction, which remains in effect, to remedy violations of the eighth amendment regarding conditions of confinement. congress subsequently enacted the prison litigation reform act of 1995 (plra), which, as relevant here, sets a standard for the entry and termination of prospective relief in civil actions challenging prison conditions. specifically, 18 u. s. c. 3626(b)(2) provides that a defendant or intervenor may move to terminate prospective relief under an existing injunction that does not meet that standard; 3626(b)(3) provides that a court may not terminate such relief if it makes certain findings; and 3626(e)(2) dictates that a motion to terminate such relief "shall operate as a stay" of that relief beginning 30 days after the motion is filed and ending when the court rules on the motion. in 1997, petitioner prison officials (hereinafter state) filed a motion to terminate the remedial order under 3626(b). respondent prisoners moved to enjoin the operation of the automatic stay, arguing that 3626(e)(2) violates due process and separation of powers principles. the district .....

Tag this Judgment!


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