Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Sorted by: recent Court: us supreme court Page 100 of about 9,392 results (0.104 seconds)

May 23 1983 (FN)

Verlinden B.V. Vs. Central Bank of Nigeria

Court : US Supreme Court

..... of 28 u.s.c. 1605(a). texas trading & milling corp. v. federal republic of nigeria, 647 f.2d at 310-313. each of those actions involved a contract with an american supplier operating within the united states, however. in the present case, the district court found that exception inapplicable, concluding that the repudiation of the letter of credit ..... every claim against a foreign sovereign a federal cause of action. see generally 13 wright, miller, & cooper 3563, at 418-419. [ footnote 23 ] in several related cases involving contracts between nigeria and other cement suppliers, the court of appeals held that statutory subject matter jurisdiction existed under the act. in those cases, the court held that nigeria's acts ..... 1 ] morgan guaranty acted solely as an advising bank; it undertook no independent responsibility for guaranteeing the letter of credit. [ footnote 2 ] in 1975, nigeria entered into 109 cement contracts with 68 suppliers. for a description of the general background of these events, see texas trading & milling corp. v. federal republic of nigeria, 647 f.2d 300, 303-306 (ca2 ..... in mid-september, central bank unilaterally directed its correspondent banks, including morgan guaranty, to adopt a series of amendments to all letters of credit issued in connection with the cement contracts. central bank also directly notified the suppliers that payment would be made only for those shipments approved by central bank two months before their arrival in nigerian waters. [ footnote .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 16 1983 (FN)

Amer. Paper Instit. Vs. Aep Svc. Corp.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... that a full-avoided-cost rate is unnecessary to encourage cogeneration and small power production. 18 cfr 292.403 (1982). second, a qualifying facility and a utility may negotiate a contract setting a price that is lower than a full-avoided-cost rate. 292.301(b)(1). because the full-avoided-cost rule is subject to revision by the commission as ..... it obtains experience with the effects of the rule, it may often be in the interest of a qualifying facility to negotiate a long-term contract at a lower rate. the commission's rule simply establishes the rate that applies in the absence of a waiver or a specific contractual agreement. page 461 u. s. 417 .....

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!

Apr 20 1983 (FN)

United States Vs. Grace

Court : US Supreme Court

united states v. grace - 461 u.s. 171 (1983) u.s. supreme court united states v. grace, 461 u.s. 171 (1983) united states v. grace no. 81-1863 argued january 18, 1983 decided april 20, 1983 461 u.s. 171 appeals for the district of columbia circuit syllabus title 40 u.s.c. 13k prohibits the "display [of] any flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice any party, organization, or movement" in the united states supreme court building or on its grounds, which are defined to include the public sidewalks constituting the outer boundaries of the grounds. one appellee was threatened with arrest by court police officers for violation of the statute when he distributed leaflets concerning various causes on the sidewalk in front of the court. the other appellee was similarly threatened with arrest for displaying on the sidewalk a picket sign containing the text of the first amendment. appellees then filed suit in federal district court, seeking an injunction against enforcement of 13k and a declaratory judgment that it was unconstitutional on its face. the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. the court of appeals, after determining that such dismissal was erroneous, struck down 13k on its face as an unconstitutional restriction on first amendment rights in a public place. held: section 13k, as applied to the public sidewalks surrounding the court building, is unconstitutional under the first amendment. pp. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 1983 (FN)

Bowsher Vs. Merck and Co., Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... footnote 3/4 ] but the fact that costs may affect a seller's decision to offer a certain price does not make costs directly pertinent to the contract. a contract, after all, is a meeting of the minds. many factors may affect one party's willingness to make an offer or the other party's willingness ..... by government officials." id. at 13372 (emphasis added). representative hardy replied that it would, unless the subcontractor only supplied some "casual item" in connection with the performance of the contract. ibid. based on this understanding, representative harvey later argued that his limiting amendment was needed, because otherwise "every manufacturer . . . of . . . goods that eventually find ..... version at issue here. representative hardy, the sponsor of both the temporary and permanent access-to-records provisions, learned that government procurement officers were negotiating contract modifications under two permanent procurement statutes that lacked access provisions, the armed services procurement act of 1947 and the federal property and administrative services act of ..... (gao) demand, the court permitted access to all records "directly pertaining to the pricing and cost of producing the items furnished by . . . merck under the . . . contracts . . . including manufacturing costs (including raw and packaging materials, labor and fringe benefits, quality control and supervision), manufacturing overhead (including plant administration, production planning, warehousing, utilities and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 1983 (FN)

Operating Engineers Vs. Jones

Court : US Supreme Court

..... of local 926 (union) had "maliciously and with full intent intimidated and coerced georgia power . . or caused georgia power . . . to be intimidated and coerced, into breaching its employment contract with plaintiff." in addition, jones alleged, in an amendment to his complaint, app. to juris.statement 18a-19a, 2a, that the union and georgia power co. (company) jointly conspired to ..... state law. for similar reasons, in farmer v. carpenters, we held that, insofar as the state court suit rested on claims of discriminatory hiring hall referrals and breach of contract, it was preempted, but that it was not preempted and could go forward insofar as it alleged the outrageous and intentional infliction of emotional distress. we deal with sears, ..... $5,000 in attorney's fees, interest, and costs. count ii of his complaint sought relief against the company and alleged that the company had breached its employment contract. the georgia trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the common law tort action had been preempted because the subject matter of the complaint was arguably within the exclusive jurisdiction ..... representative of the union, had "maliciously and with full intent, intimidated and coerced georgia power company, or caused georgia power company to be intimidated and coerced, into breaching its employment contract with the plaintiff." respondent prayed for a judgment of $80,000 against petitioners, to be composed of $25,000 in lost wages, $50,000 in punitive damages, and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 1983 (FN)

Metropolitan Edison Co. Vs. Nlrb

Court : US Supreme Court

..... f.2d 923, 927 (ca1 1981). the holding in teamsters v. lucas flour co., 369 u. s. 95 (1962), is not to the contrary. there the court found that a contract provision establishing that a dispute shall be settled exclusively and finally by compulsory arbitration makes clear that the union may not strike over such a dispute. see id. at 369 ..... it were "explicitly stated," the court determined that "there is no adequate basis for implying [the] existence [of waiver] without a more compelling expression of it than appears in . . . this contract." 350 u.s. at 350 u. s. 283 . thus, we will not infer from a general contractual provision that the parties intended to waive a statutorily protected right unless the ..... examine first the union s argument. a this court long has recognized that a union may waive a member's statutorily protected rights, including "his right to strike during the contract term, and his right to refuse to cross a lawful picket line." nlrb v. allis-chalmers manufacturing co., 388 u. s. 175 , 388 u. s. 180 (1967) (footnotes omitted). such ..... collective bargaining agreement. unquestionably there is support for the proposition that union officials, as leaders of the rank and file, have a legal obligation to support the terms of the contract and to set a responsible example for their members. see indiana & michigan electric co. v. nlrb, 599 f.2d at 230-232. and in view of the disruptive effects of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 1983 (FN)

Arizona Vs. California

Court : US Supreme Court

arizona v. california - 460 u.s. 605 (1983) u.s. supreme court arizona v. california, 460 u.s. 605 (1983) arizona v. california no. 8, orig. argued december 8, 1982 decided march 30, 1983 460 u.s. 605 on exceptions to special master's report and recommended decree and motions to intervene syllabus this extended litigation over rights to the waters of the colorado river began in 1952, when arizona brought an original action in this court against california and several of its public agencies. later, nevada, new mexico, utah, and the united states became parties. following the report of a special master, the major issue in the case -- the apportionment of water among the lower basin states -- was resolved in the court's opinion, 373 u. s. 373 u.s. 546, and 1964 decree, 376 u. s. 376 u.s. 340. a supplemental decree identifying present perfected rights was entered in 1979. 439 u. s. 439 u.s. 419. pursuant to the court's initial opinion and decree, the united states acquired water rights for the reservations of five indian tribes that are dependent upon the river for their water. the proper standard for measuring the water rights intended for the reservations was held to be "practicably irrigable acreage," and the special master's calculation of the amount of such acreage was approved. the united states, and the tribes which ask to intervene in the action, now seek to have those water rights increased to account for (1) "omitted lands" -- irrigable lands within recognized .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 1983 (FN)

Falls City Indus., Inc. Vs. Vanco Beverage, Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

falls city indus., inc. v. vanco beverage, inc. - 460 u.s. 428 (1983) u.s. supreme court falls city indus., inc. v. vanco beverage, inc., 460 u.s. 428 (1983) falls city industries, inc. v. vanco beverage, inc. no. 81-1271 argued october 13, 1982 decided march 22, 1983 460 u.s. 428 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit syllabus during a certain period from 1972 through 1978, petitioner sold its beer to respondent, the sole wholesale distributor for petitioner's beer in vanderburgh county, ind., at a higher price than petitioner charged its only wholesale distributor in henderson county, ky., the two counties forming a single metropolitan area across the state line. under indiana law, brewers were required to sell to all indiana wholesalers at a single price, indiana wholesalers were prohibited from selling to out-of-state retailers, and indiana retailers were not permitted to purchase beer from out-of-state wholesalers. respondent filed suit in federal district court, alleging that petitioner's price discrimination violated 2(a) of the clayton act, as amended by the robinson-patman act. after trial, the court held that respondent had established a prima facie case of price discrimination, finding that, although respondent and petitioner's kentucky wholesaler did not sell to the same retailers, they competed for sale of petitioner's beer to consumers of beer from retailers in the market area; that petitioner's pricing policy resulted in lower .....

Tag this Judgment!


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