Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Court: us supreme court Year: 2006 Page 3 of about 37 results (0.081 seconds)

Feb 28 2006 (FN)

Texaco Inc. Vs. Dagher

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-28-2006

..... long recognized that congress intended to outlaw only unreasonable restraints (emphasis added)). instead, this court presumptively applies rule of reason analysis, under which antitrust plaintiffs must demonstrate that a particular contract or combination is in fact unreasonable and anticompetitive before it will be found unlawful. see, e.g. , id. , at 10 19 (concluding that vertical price-fixing arrangements are subject ..... fixing applies to an important and increasingly popular form of business organization, the joint venture. 545 u. s. ___ (2005). ii section 1 of the sherman act prohibits [e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states. 15 u. s. c. 1. this court has not ..... outlaw only unreasonable restraints, e.g. , state oil co. v. khan, 522 u. s. 3 , 10. under rule of reason analysis, antitrust plaintiffs must demonstrate that a particular contract or combination is in fact unreasonable and anticompetitive. see, e.g. , id. , at 10 19. per se liability is reserved for plainly anticompetitive agreements. national soc. of professional engineers v ..... se illegal under 1 of the sherman act for a lawful, economically integrated joint venture to set the prices at which it sells its products. although 1 prohibits [e]very contract [or] combination in restraint of trade, 15 u. s. c. 1, this court has not taken a literal approach to that language, recognizing, instead, that congress intended to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 2006 (FN)

Arbaugh Vs. Y and H Corp.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-22-2006

arbaugh v. y & h corp. - 04-944 (2006) syllabus october term, 2005 arbaugh v. y & h corp. supreme court of the united states arbaugh v . y & h corp. dba the moonlight cafe certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit no. 04 944.?argued january 11, 2006 decided february 22, 2006 title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any [employee] with respect to sex, 42 u. s. c. 2000e 2(a)(1), and defines employer as a person who has fifteen or more employees, 2000e(b). the act s jurisdictional provision empowers federal courts to adjudicate civil actions brought under title vii. 2000e 5(f)(3). title vii actions also fit within the judicial code s grant of subject-matter jurisdiction to federal courts over actions arising under federal law. 28 u. s. c. 1331. at the time title vii was enacted, 1331 contained a $10,000 amount-in-controversy threshold, which left title vii claims below that amount uncovered. section 2000e 5(f)(3) assured that the amount-in-controversy limitation would not impede a title vii complainant s access to a federal forum. since 1980, when congress amended 1331 to eliminate the amount-in-controversy threshold, 2000e 5(f)(3) has served simply to underscore congress intention to provide a federal forum for title vii claims. because congress has also authorized federal courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims linked to a federal claim, 28 u. s. c. 1367, title .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 11 2006 (FN)

Carey Vs. Musladin

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-11-2006

carey v. musladin - 05-785 (2006) syllabus october term, 2006 carey v. musladin supreme court of the united states carey, warden v . musladin certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit no. 05 785.?argued october 11, 2006 decided december 11, 2006 at respondent musladin s murder trial, members of the victim s family sat in the front row of the spectators gallery wearing buttons displaying the victim s image. the trial court denied musladin s motion to order the family members not to wear the buttons. the california court of appeal upheld musladin s conviction, stating that he had to show actual or inherent prejudice to succeed on the buttons claim; citing holbrook v. flynn , 475 u. s. 560 , as providing the test for inherent prejudice; and ruling that he had not satisfied that test. the federal district court denied musladin s habeas petition, but the ninth circuit reversed and remanded, finding that the state court s decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, 28 u. s. c. 2254(d)(1), as determined by this court in estelle v. williams , 425 u. s. 501 , and flynn , supra . held: the ninth circuit improperly concluded that the california court of appeal s decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by this court. pp. 3 7. (a) because clearly established federal law in 2254(d)(1) refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 2006 (FN)

Lopez Vs. Gonzales

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-05-2006

lopez v. gonzales - 05-547 (2006) syllabus october term, 2006 lopez v. gonzales supreme court of the united states lopez v . gonzales, attorney general certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit no. 05 547.?argued october 3, 2006 decided december 5, 2006 the immigration and nationality act (ina) lists as an aggravated felony illicit trafficking in a controlled substance including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of title 18), 8 u. s. c. 1101(a)(43)(b), but does not define illicit trafficking. title 18 u. s. c. 924(c)(2) defines drug trafficking crime to include any felony punishable under the controlled substances act (csa). petitioner lopez, a legal permanent resident alien, pleaded guilty to south dakota charges of aiding and abetting another person s possession of cocaine, which state law treated as the equivalent of possessing the drug, a state felony. the immigration and naturalization service (ins) began removal proceedings on the ground, inter alia , that lopez s state conviction was for an aggravated felony. the immigration judge ultimately ruled that despite the csa s treatment of lopez s crime as a misdemeanor, see 21 u. s. c. 844(a), it was an aggravated felony under the ina owing to its being a felony under state law. the judge ordered lopez removed in light of 8 u. s. c. 1229b(a)(3), which provides that the attorney general s discretion to cancel the removal of a person otherwise deportable does not reach a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 26 2006 (FN)

Kansas Vs. Marsh

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-26-2006

kansas v. marsh - 04-1170 (2006) syllabus october term, 2005 kansas v. marsh supreme court of the united states kansas v . marsh certiorari to the supreme court of kansas no. 04 1170.?argued december 7, 2005 reargued april 25, 2006 decided june 26, 2006 finding three aggravating circumstances that were not outweighed by mitigating circumstances, a kansas jury convicted respondent marsh of, inter alia, capital murder and sentenced him to death. marsh claimed on direct appeal that kan. stat. ann. 21 4624(e) establishes an unconstitutional presumption in favor of death by directing imposition of the death penalty when aggravating and mitigating circumstances are in equipoise. agreeing, the kansas supreme court concluded that 21 4624(e) s weighing equation violated the eighth and fourteenth amendments and remanded for a new trial. held: 1. this court has jurisdiction to review the kansas supreme court s judgment under 28 u. s. c. 1257. that provision authorizes review of a state s final judgment when a state statute s validity is questioned on federal constitutional grounds, and it permits review even when the state-court proceedings are not complete where the federal claim has been finally decided and later review of the federal issue cannot be had, whatever the case s outcome, cox broadcasting corp. v. cohn, 420 u. s. 469 , 481. although marsh will be retried, the state supreme court s determination that the death penalty statute is unconstitutional is final and binding on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 26 2006 (FN)

Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. Vs. Murphy

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-26-2006

..... hospital v. halderman, 451 u. s. 1 , 17 (1981); rowley, supra , at 204, n. 26. [l]egislation enacted pursuant to the spending power is much in the nature of a contract, and therefore, to be bound by federally imposed conditions, recipients of federal funds must accept them voluntarily and knowingly. pennhurst , 451 u. s., at 17. states cannot knowingly accept conditions .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 19 2006 (FN)

Davis Vs. Washington

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-19-2006

davis v. washington - 05-5224 (2006) syllabus october term, 2005 davis v. washington supreme court of the united states davis v . washington certiorari to the supreme court of washington no. 05 5224.?argued march 20, 2006 decided june 19, 2006 in no. 05 5224, a 911 operator ascertained from michelle mccottry that she had been assaulted by her former boyfriend, petitioner davis, who had just fled the scene. mccottry did not testify at davis s trial for felony violation of a domestic no-contact order, but the court admitted the 911 recording despite davis s objection, which he based on the sixth amendment s confrontation clause. he was convicted. the washington court of appeals affirmed, as did the state supreme court, which concluded that, inter alia, the portion of the 911 conversation in which mccottry identified davis as her assailant was not testimonial. in no. 05 5705, when police responded to a reported domestic disturbance at the home of amy and hershel hammon, amy told them that nothing was wrong, but gave them permission to enter. once inside, one officer kept petitioner hershel in the kitchen while the other interviewed amy elsewhere and had her complete and sign a battery affidavit. amy did not appear at hershel s bench trial for, inter alia, domestic battery, but her affidavit and testimony from the officer who questioned her were admitted over hershel s objection that he had no opportunity to cross-examine her. hershel was convicted, and the indiana court of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 2006 (FN)

Dolan Vs. Postal Service

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-22-2006

..... .1.1 (nov. 10, 2005), available at http://pe.usps.gov/text/dmm300/609.htm (as visited jan. 9, 2006, and available in clerk of court s case file) (allowing indemnity claims for loss or damage of insured, collect on delivery (cod), registered with postal insurance, or express mail ); 39 cfr 111.1 (2005) (incorporating by reference the domestic mail manual .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2006 (FN)

Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. Vs. Swift-eckrich, Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-23-2006

unitherm food systems, inc. v. swift-eckrich, inc. - 04-597 (2006) syllabus october term, 2005 unitherm food systems, inc. v. swift-eckrich, inc. supreme court of the united states unitherm food systems, inc. v . swift-eckrich, inc., dba conagra refrigerated foods certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit no. 04 597.?argued november 2, 2005 decided january 23, 2006 after respondent conagra warned companies selling equipment and processes for browning precooked meats that it intended to protect its rights under its patent for that process, petitioner unitherm, whose president had invented the process six years before conagra filed its patent application, and one of conagra s direct competitors jointly filed suit in an oklahoma federal court. as relevant here, they sought a declaration that conagra s patent was invalid and unenforceable and alleged that conagra had violated 2 of the sherman act by attempting to enforce a patent obtained by fraud on the patent and trademark office, see walker process equipment, inc. v. food machinery & chemical corp., 382 u. s. 172 , 174. the district court found the patent invalid and allowed the walker process claim to proceed to trial. before the case was submitted to the jury, conagra moved for a directed verdict under federal rule of civil procedure 50(a) based on legal insufficiency of the evidence. the court denied the motion, the jury returned a verdict for unitherm, and conagra neither renewed its motion .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 2006 (FN)

Brown Vs. Sanders

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-11-2006

brown v. sanders - 04-980 (2006) syllabus october term, 2005 brown v. sanders supreme court of the united states brown, warden v . sanders certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit no. 04 980.?argued october 11, 2005 decided january 11, 2006 in convicting respondent sanders of, inter alia, first-degree murder, the jury found four special circumstances, each of which rendered him death eligible under cal. penal code ann. 190.2. at the penalty phase, the jury was instructed to consider a list of sentencing factors, including [t]he circumstances of the crime and the existence of any special circumstances found to be true, 190.3(a), and sentenced him to death. the state supreme court invalidated two of the special circumstances on direct appeal, but nonetheless affirmed the conviction and sentence. the federal district court subsequently denied sanders habeas relief, rejecting his claim that the jury s consideration of invalid special circumstances rendered his death sentence unconstitutional. reversing, the ninth circuit applied the rules for weighing states, see stringer v. black, 503 u. s. 222 , rather than non-weighing states, see zant v. stephens, 462 u. s. 862 , and found that sanders had been unconstitutionally deprived of an individualized death sentence. held: 1. the requirement that states limit the class of murderers to which the death penalty may be applied, furman v. georgia, 408 u. s. 238 (per curiam), is usually met when the trier of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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