Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Sorted by: recent Court: us supreme court Year: 1983 Page 6 of about 89 results (0.103 seconds)

Jan 24 1983 (FN)

Herman and Maclean and Huddleston

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-24-1983

herman & maclean & huddleston - 459 u.s. 375 (1983) u.s. supreme court herman & maclean & huddleston, 459 u.s. 375 (1983) herman & maclean & huddleston no. 81-680 argued november 9, 1982 decided january 24, 1983 * 459 u.s. 375 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit syllabus alleging that they were defrauded by misrepresentations in a registration statement and prospectus for certain securities, purchasers of such securities brought a class action in federal district court against most of the participants in the offering, seeking recovery under 10(b) of the securities exchange act of 1934 (1934 act), which makes it unlawful for "any" person to use "any" manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in the purchase or sale of "any" security. the trial judge instructed the jury to determine whether the plaintiffs had proved their cause of action by a preponderance of the evidence, and judgment was entered on the basis of a jury verdict in plaintiffs' favor. the court of appeals held that a cause of action may be maintained under 10(b) for fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions even when, as in this case, that conduct might also be actionable under 11 of the securities act of 1933 (1933 act), which expressly allows purchasers of a registered security to sue certain enumerated parties who play a direct role in a registered offering when false or misleading information is included in a registration statement. however, the court of appeals .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 1983 (FN)

Missouri Vs. Hunter

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-19-1983

missouri v. hunter - 459 u.s. 359 (1983) u.s. supreme court missouri v. hunter, 459 u.s. 359 (1983) missouri v. hunter no. 81-1214 argued november 10, 1982 decided january 19, 1983 459 u.s. 359 certiorari to the court of appeals of missouri, western district syllabus a missouri statute provides that any person who commits any felony under the laws of the state through the use of a dangerous or deadly weapon is also guilty of the crime of armed criminal action punishable by imprisonment for not less than three years, which punishment shall be in addition to any punishment provided by law for the felony. another missouri statute provides that any person convicted of the felony of first-degree robbery by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five years. respondent, as the result of a robbery of a supermarket in which he used a revolver, was convicted in a missouri state court of both first-degree robbery and armed criminal action, and, pursuant to the statutes, was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 10 years for robbery and 15 years for armed criminal action. the missouri court of appeals reversed respondent's conviction and sentence for armed criminal action on the ground that his sentence for both robbery and armed criminal action violated the protection against multiple punishments for the same offense provided by the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment as made applicable to the states by the fourteenth .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1983 (FN)

Shepard Vs. Nlrb

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-18-1983

..... . shortly thereafter, kissinger's manager was informed by penhall's superintendent that the union had said that kissinger should be replaced because it was referring nonunion operators. kissinger lost the contract with penhall, and subsequently signed the 1977 agreement. 249 n.l.r.b. at 390. [ footnote 2/2 ] the recommended order, which was omitted from publication, would have required ..... employer, or to cease doing business with any other person, and any contract or agreement entered into . . . containing such an agreement shall be to such extent unenforcible [ sic ] and void. . . ." 73 stat. 543. [ footnote 2 ] section 8(b)(4), as set ..... is therefore affirmed. [ footnote 1 ] section 8(e) provides in pertinent part: "it shall be an unfair labor practice for any labor organization and any employer to enter into any contract or agreement . . . whereby such employer ceases or refrains or agrees to cease or refrain from handling, using, selling, transporting or otherwise dealing in any of the products of any ..... charges with the national labor relations board, claiming that the agreement violated, inter alia, 8(e) of the national labor relations act (act), which prohibits so-called "hot cargo" contracts. an administrative law judge held that the union and the contractors had violated 8(e) by agreeing not to do business with nonunion owner-operators of dump trucks, and recommended .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 1983 (FN)

Director, Owcp Vs. Perini North River Assocs.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-11-1983

..... purposes involved the elimination of a strict liability unseaworthiness remedy against a vessel owner afforded to longshoremen by seas shipping co. v. sieracki, 328 u. s. 85 (1946), and an indemnity claim against the stevedore by the vessel owner afforded by ryan page 459 u. s. 322 stevedoring co. v. pan-atlantic s.s. corp., 350 u. s. 124 (1956). ..... (brandeis, j., dissenting). [ footnote 2/15 ] in explaining why the holding in rohde was consistent with jensen and subsequent cases, the court stated: "in each of them, the employment or contract was maritime in nature, and the rights and liabilities of the parties were prescribed by general rules of maritime law essential to its proper harmony and uniformity. here, the parties ..... 1972 legislative history. [ footnote 2/13 ] the court reasoned: "the work of a stevedore in which the deceased was engaging is maritime in its nature; his employment was a maritime contract; the injuries which he received were likewise maritime; and the rights and liabilities of the parties in connection therewith were matters clearly within the admiralty jurisdiction." "if new york can ..... page 459 u. s. 300 coverage under the amended lhwca. accordingly, we reverse the decision below. i the facts are not in dispute. respondent perini north river associates (perini) contracted to build the foundation of a sewage treatment plant that extends approximately 700 feet over the hudson river between 136th and 145th streets in manhattan. the project required that perini .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 1983 (FN)

Bowen Vs. Usps

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-11-1983

..... ) (employee may present grievances to his employer "without the intervention of the bargaining representative, as long as the adjustment is not inconsistent with the terms of a collective bargaining contract or agreement then in effect . . ."). most collective bargaining agreements, however, contain exclusive grievance-arbitration procedures and give the union power to supervise the procedure. see feller, supra ..... made no attempt to exhaust the grievance procedure, it was necessary for the court to consider only the union's interest in participating in the administration of the contract and the employer's interest in limiting administrative remedies. the court noted, however, that, if "the union refuses to press or only perfunctorily presses the individual' ..... difficulty with this argument is that it treats the relationship between the employer and employee, created by the collective bargaining agreement, as if it were a simple contract of hire governed by traditional common law principles. this reading of vaca fails to recognize that a collective bargaining agreement is much more than traditional common law employment ..... for damages resulting from a wrongful discharge treats the relationship between the employer and employee, created by the collective bargaining agreement, as if it were a simple contract of hire governed by traditional common law principles. such a reading fails to recognize that a collective bargaining agreement is much more than traditional common law employment .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 23 1983 (FN)

Verlinden B.V. Vs. Central Bank of Nigeria

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-23-1983

..... 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

Decided on : May-16-1983

..... 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!

May 16 1983 (FN)

Arkansas Elec. Coop. Vs. Ark. Psc

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-16-1983

arkansas elec. coop. v. ark. psc - 461 u.s. 375 (1983) u.s. supreme court arkansas elec. coop. v. ark. psc, 461 u.s. 375 (1983) arkansas electric cooperative corp. v. arkansas public service commission no. 81-731 argued january 17, 1983 decided may 16, 1983 461 u.s. 375 appeal from the supreme court of arkansas syllabus appellant is a customer-owned rural power cooperative established with loan funds and technical assistance provided by the federal rural electrification administration (rea), but unlike most such cooperatives, which provide power directly to consumers, appellant's sole members and primary customers are 17 smaller arkansas rural power cooperatives which, in turn, serve the ultimate consumer. although tied into an interstate "grid" arrangement with other producers, appellant obtains most of its energy from powerplants located in arkansas, which it wholly or partially owns, and sells most of what it generates to its member cooperatives. appellee arkansas public service commission entered an order asserting jurisdiction over the wholesale rates charged by appellant to its member cooperatives, concluding that state regulation was neither forbidden by public utilities comm'n of r. i. v. attleboro steam & electric co., 273 u. s. 83 -- which held that, while consistent with the commerce clause, the states could regulate retail sales of electricity, they could not regulate wholesale sales -- nor preempted by the federal power act or the rural electrification act of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 1983 (FN)

Jim Mcneff, Inc. Vs. Todd

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-27-1983

..... 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 26 1983 (FN)

Olim Vs. Wakinekona

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-26-1983

..... 7 ] title 18 u.s.c. 4002 (1976 ed. and supp. v) permits the attorney general to contract with any state for the placement of a federal prisoner in state custody for up to three years. neither statute requires that the prisoner remain in the state in which ..... , from time to time, it is necessary to transfer inmates to prisons in other states. on the federal level, 18 u.s.c. 5003(a) authorizes the attorney general to contract with a state for the transfer of a state prisoner to a federal prison, whether in that state or another. see howe v. smith, 452 u. s. 473 (1981). [ footnote .....

Tag this Judgment!


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