Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Sorted by: old Court: us supreme court Year: 1977 Page 1 of about 74 results (0.114 seconds)

Apr 26 1977 (FN)

United States Vs. Consumer Life Ins. Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-26-1977

..... consent, once given, may not be rescinded except with the approval of the secretary or his delegate." "(b) definition of modified coinsurance contract." "for purposes of this section, the term 'modified coinsurance contract' means an indemnity reinsurance contract under the terms of which -- " "(1) a life insurance company (hereinafter referred to as 'the reinsurer') agrees to indemnify another ..... from the one presented here, is simply unintelligible if congress thought that 801 embodied an unvarying rule that reserves follow the risk. a conventional coinsurance contract is a particular form of indemnity reinsurance. [ footnote 28 ] the reinsurer agrees to reimburse the ceding company for a stated portion of obligations arising out of the covered policies. ..... 11). the difference in computation methods is not material for present purposes. [ footnote 7 ] each was an indemnity reinsurance treaty, obligating the reinsurer to reimburse the ceding company for its share of losses. such treaties constitute contracts between the companies only; the policyholders are not involved, and usually remain unaware that part or all of the ..... companies to invest the dollars, and, under the treaties, they kept all resulting investment income. nor were they mere "paymasters," as the government contends, for indemnity reinsurance of this type does not relieve the ceding company of its responsibility to policyholders. had the taxpayers become insolvent, the insurer still would have been obligated to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 09 1977 (FN)

Stencel Aero Engineering Corp. Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-09-1977

..... we must therefore consider the impact of these factors where, as here, the suit against the government is not brought by the serviceman himself, but by a third party seeking indemnity for any damages it may be required to pay the serviceman. clearly, the first factor considered in feres operates with equal force in this case. the relationship between the government ..... manufacture. stencel therefore claimed that, insofar as it was negligent at all, its negligence was passive, while the negligence of the united states was active. accordingly it prayed for indemnity as to any sums it would be required to pay to captain donham. [ footnote 3 ] the united states moved for summary judgment against donham, contending that he could ..... that the emergency eject system malfunctioned as a result of "the negligence and carelessness of the defendants individually and jointly." stencel then cross-claimed against the united states for indemnity, charging that any malfunction in the egress life support system used by donham was due to faulty specifications, requirements, and components provided by the united states or other ..... , missouri air national guard. [ footnote 2 ] there is no contractual relationship between the united states and stencel. stencel contracted with north american rockwell, the prime government contractor, to provide the f-100's pilot eject system. [ footnote 3 ] stencel's indemnity claim is based upon the law of missouri. see, e.g., feinstein v. edward livington & sons, inc., 457 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 1977 (FN)

Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Vs. Doyle

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-11-1977

..... difficulty disposing of, asserts that the $10,000 amount in controversy required by that section is not satisfied in this case. the leading case on this point is st. paul indemnity co. v. red cab co., 303 u. s. 283 (1938), which stated this test: "[t]he sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good ..... doyle sued petitioner mt. healthy board of education in the united states district court for the southern district of ohio. doyle claimed that the board's refusal to renew his contract in 1971 violated his rights under the first and fourteenth amendments to the united states constitution. after a bench trial, the district court held that doyle was entitled to reinstatement ..... award only compensatory damages, it was far from a "legal certainty" at the time of suit that respondent would not have been entitled to more than that amount. st. paul indemnity co. v. red cab co., 303 u. s. 283 , 303 u. s. 288 -289. pp. 429 u. s. 276 -277. 2. petitioner, in making its belated contention concerning 1983, failed ..... merits of respondent's claim under the first and fourteenth amendments. doyle was first employed by the board in 1966. he worked under one-year contracts for the first three years, and under a two-year contract from 1969 to 1971. in 1969, he was elected president of the teachers' association, in which position he worked to expand the subjects of direct .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 1977 (SC)

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. the Central India Machinery Manufacturing Com ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-06-1977

Reported in : (1977)2SCC847; [1977]40STC246(SC)

..... of pre-emption. even so, much capital cannot be made out of the use of this loose expression in the indemnity bond, when the conditions embodied in the contract documents, read as a whole, clearly show that the property in the materials purchased by the company with the assistance ..... including steel or components will be reimbursed by the railway board.(underlining ours.)21. the material part of the indemnity bond, which was subsequently executed by the company in connection with the contract, provides : whereas under railway board's order no. 67/rs(i)/954/15 dated 23-12-1967 ..... not only collateral but also posterior in point of time to the contract. it will bear repetition that there is no conflict or inconsistency between standard condition 15 and ..... works, on production of a certificate to that effect from the concerned officer of the inspection and liaison organisation and on the firm furnishing necessary indemnity bond to the paying authority.note: 'on account' payment will be permissible only on steel procured according to joint director (iron & steel ..... intention of the contracting parties is primarily to be sought within the four corners of the documents containing the standard and special conditions of contract. if such intention is clearly discernible from these documents, it will not be proper to seek external aid from the stereotyped indemnity bond which is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 1977 (SC)

Union of India Vs. Central India Machinery Manufacturing Company Ltd. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-06-1977

Reported in : (1977)6CTR(SC)220; 1977()WLN313

..... right of preemption. even so much capital cannot be made out of the use of this loose expression in the indemnity bond, when the conditions embodied in the contract documents read as a whole, clearly show that the property in the materials purchased by the company with the assistance ..... materials including steel or components will be reimbursed by the railway board.16. the material part of the indemnity bond which was subsequently executed by the company in connection with the contract, provides :'whereas under railway boards order no. 67/rs(i)/954/15 dated 23-12-1967, the ..... not only collateral but also posterior in point of time to the contract. it will bear repetition that there is no conflict or inconsistency between standard condition 15 and ..... , on production of a certificate to that effect from the concerned officer of the inspection and liaison organisation and on the firm furnishing necessary indemnity bond to the paying authority.note : on account payment will be permissible on steel procured according to joint director (iron & steel), calcutta ..... intention of the contracting parties is primarily to be sought within the four corners of the documents containing standard and special conditions of the contract. if such intention is clearly discernible from these documents, it will not be proper to seek external aid from the stereotyped indemnity bond which is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 1977 (SC)

Jahar Roy (Dead) Through L.Rs. and anr. Vs. Premji Bhimji Mansata and ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-03-1977

Reported in : AIR1977SC2439; (1977)4SCC562; [1978]1SCR770; 1978(10)LC19(SC)

..... not made for the benefit of the other contracting party who is the defendant to the action. he cannot insist on the indemnity or the offer of it; for it is no concern of his. all that he can require is that both the ..... two persons jointly then one of them cannot ordinarily require the other to join as plaintiff and cannot add him as a defendant, unless he offers him an indemnity against costs. this, however is a rule made for the protection of the joint contractor whom it is sought to add as plaintiff or defendant. it is ..... that even if it were held to be permissible for one joint promise to make the other a co-defendant, that would not be permissible without the tender of indemnity against costs, which was not done in this case. that rule finds a mention in halsbury's laws of england, third edition, at page 61 and appears ..... as the licence was given by the plaintiff and jitendra nath bose as joint promises of the property, the suit was not maintainable under section 45 of the contract act, hereinafter referred to as the act, by one of the joint promises without joining jitendra nath bose as a co-plaintiff.10. section 45 and the ..... persons, with whom he made his contract, are before the court. so long as they are both there, even if one is a defendant .....

Tag this Judgment!

1977

Hill Vs. Garner.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-01-1977

hill v. garner. - 434 u.s. 989 (1977) u.s. supreme court hill v. garner. , 434 u.s. 989 (1977) 434 u.s. 989 sharon hill v. david max garner no. 77-132 supreme court of the united states december 12, 1977 the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. mr. justice white, with whom mr. justice brennan joins, dissenting. page 434 u.s. 989 , 990 in 1929 this court held that connecticut's guest statute did not violate the equal protection clause, because it could not be said that "no grounds exist[ed] for the distinction" between gratuitous passengers in automobiles and those in other classes of vehicles. silver v. silver, 280 u.s. 117, 123 (1929). while that decision for a while foreclosed federal equal protection challenges to the guest statutes of the various states, in recent years the issue of the constitutional validity of these statutes has been frequently litigated in state courts with conflicting results. since 1971 the highest courts of no fewer than 6 states have concluded that their guest statutes violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment,2 while during the same period similar statutes page 434 u.s. 989 , 991 have been upheld against federal constitutional attack in 10 states. [ footnote 3 ] typical of those decisions striking down the guest statutes is brown v. merlo, 8 cal.3d 855, 106 cal.rptr. 388, 506 p.2d 212 (1973), in which the california supreme court concluded that the classifications created by the challenged .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 1977 (FN)

Arlington Heights Vs. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-11-1977

..... the housing and community development act of 1974. see n 2, supra. [ footnote 8 ] petitioners contend that mhdc lacks standing to pursue its claim here because a contract purchaser whose contract is contingent upon rezoning cannot contest a zoning decision in the illinois courts. under the law of illinois, only the owner of the property has standing to pursue such ..... . petitioners nonetheless appear to argue that mhdc lacks standing because it has suffered no economic injury. mhdc, they point out, is not the owner of the property in question. its contract of purchase is contingent upon securing rezoning. [ footnote 8 ] mhdc owes the owners nothing if rezoning is denied. we cannot accept petitioners' argument. in the first place, it ..... here there can be little doubt that mhdc meets the constitutional standing requirements. the challenged action of the petitioners stands as an absolute barrier to constructing the housing mhdc had contracted to place on the viatorian site. if mhdc secures the injunctive relief it seeks, that barrier will be removed. an injunction would not, of course, guarantee that lincoln ..... contingent upon mhdc's securing zoning clearances from the village and 236 housing assistance from the federal government. if mhdc proved unsuccessful in securing either, both the lease and the contract of sale would lapse. the agreement established a bargain purchase price of $300,000, low enough to comply with federal limitations governing land-acquisition costs for 236 housing. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1977 (FN)

Walsh Vs. Schlect

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-18-1977

..... of the united brotherhood of carpenters and joiners of america, with which petitioner by memorandum agreement agreed to comply, provides as follows: "if an employer, bound by this agreement, contracts or subcontracts, any work covered by this agreement to be done at the jobsite of the construction, alteration or repair of a building, structure or other work to any person ..... have different meanings under state and federal law . . . ," id. at 369 u. s. 103 . the oregon courts did not specify in this case whether federal or state principles of contract construction guided their concurring conclusions that the subcontractor's clause was not to be read as violating 302(a)(1). we shall therefore assume that federal principles were applied. in ..... 302(c)(5) and (6). before turning to the question of the meaning of the clause, we must address a threshold question -- whether federal or state law principles of contract construction, if they differ, are to be applied. plainly federal law principles apply. although the oregon courts were not foreclosed from entertaining this suit merely because petitioner's defense invoked ..... all the funds equal standing, reversed the judgment insofar as it limited the accounting to the apprenticeship and ciaf trusts. held: 1. federal- rather than state law principles of contract construction apply in determining the meaning of the subcontractor's clause, since it is a provision of a collective bargaining agreement and application of federal law is necessary to avoid .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 1977 (FN)

Brunswick Corp. Vs. Pueblo Bowl-o-mat, Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-25-1977

brunswick corp. v. pueblo bowl-o-mat, inc. - 429 u.s. 477 (1977) u.s. supreme court brunswick corp. v. pueblo bowl-o-mat, inc., 429 u.s. 477 (1977) brunswick corp. v. pueblo bowl-o-mat, inc. no. 75-904 argued november 3, 1976 decided january 25, 1977 429 u.s. 477 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit syllabus respondents, bowling centers in three distinct markets, brought this antitrust action against petitioner, one of the two largest bowling equipment manufacturers and the largest operator of bowling centers, claiming that petitioner's acquisitions of competing bowling centers that had defaulted in payments for bowling equipment that they had purchased from petitioner might substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in violation of 7 of the clayton act. respondents sought treble damages pursuant to 4 of the act, as well as injunctive and other relief. at trial, they sought to prove that petitioner, because of its size, had the capacity to lessen competition in the markets it had entered by driving smaller competitors out of business. to establish damages, respondents attempted to show that, had petitioner allowed the defaulting centers to close, respondents' profits would have increased. the jury returned a verdict for damages in favor of respondents, which the district court trebled in accordance with 4. the court of appeals, while endorsing the legal theories upon which respondents' claim was based, reversed the case .....

Tag this Judgment!


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