Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Sorted by: recent Court: us supreme court Year: 1983 Page 9 of about 89 results (0.057 seconds)

Feb 22 1983 (FN)

Hewitt Vs. Helms

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-22-1983

..... much consideration, and some of the included things have been definitely stated. without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship god according to the dictates .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 1983 (FN)

Energy Reserves Group Vs. Kansas P. and L. Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-24-1983

..... is a governmental price escalator clause; this provides that, if a governmental authority fixes a price for any natural gas that is higher than the price specified in the contract, the contract price shall be increased to that level. [ footnote 1 ] the second is a price redetermination page 459 u. s. 404 clause; this gives erg the option ..... relevant present and future state and federal law. [ footnote 22 ] this latter provision could be interpreted to incorporate all future state price regulation, and thus dispose of the contract clause claim. regardless of whether this interpretation is correct, [ footnote 23 ] the provision does suggest that erg knew its contractual rights were subject to alteration by state price regulation ..... consistent with anticipated regulated increases in the value of appellant's gas, not page 459 u. s. 402 that appellant expected to receive deregulated prices. moreover, the contract provision making any contractual term subject to relevant present and future state and federal law suggests that appellant knew its contractual rights were subject to alteration by state price regulation ..... is found, the state, in justification, must have a significant and legitimate public purpose behind the regulation. once such a purpose has been identified, the adjustment of the contracting parties' rights and responsibilities must be based upon reasonable conditions, and must be of a character appropriate to the public purpose justifying the legislation's adoption. pp. 459 u .....

Tag this Judgment!

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!

1983

Harvard Vs. Florida

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-01-1983

harvard v. florida - 459 u.s. 1128 (1983) u.s. supreme court harvard v. florida , 459 u.s. 1128 (1983) 459 u.s. 1128 william lanay harvard, petitioner, v. florida no. 82-5444 supreme court of the united states january 10, 1983 on petition for writ of certiorari to the supreme court of florida. the petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. justice marshall, with whom justice brennan joins, dissenting. the issue presented by this case is whether a violation of gardner v. florida, 430 u.s. 349 (1977), can be remedied by a remand to the original sentencing judge for a limited hearing in which the burden is placed upon the defendant to rebut or explain the information which had not been disclosed to him at the initial sentencing proceeding. i in 1974 petitioner was convicted after a jury trial of the first- degree murder of his ex-wife. in a separate sentencing proceeding a majority of the jury voted to recommend a death sentence. under the florida capital sentencing statute the jury's verdict in the sentencing proceeding is only advisory; the actual sentence is determined by the judge. see fla.stat.ann. 921.141 (supp.1982). in this case the judge found that page 459 u.s. 1128 , 1129 two statutory aggravating circumstances were applicable. he determined that the defendant had previously been convicted of a felony involving the use of violence to the person, and that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. the judge also found that none of the statutorily .....

Tag this Judgment!

1983

Ashley Vs. City of Jackson, Miss.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-01-1983

..... , 439 u.s. 322 , 327 n. 7, 649 n. 7 (1979). this principle should apply with all the more force to a consent decree, which is little more than a contract between the parties, formalized by the signature of a judge. the central feature of any consent decree is that it is not an adjudication on the merits. the decree may .....

Tag this Judgment!


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