Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: contract of indemnity contract Sorted by: recent Court: us supreme court Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 41 results (0.194 seconds)

Oct 04 2005 (SC)

State of Rajasthan Vs. Nav Bharat Construction Company

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-04-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC4430; 2005(3)ARBLR429(SC); JT2005(9)SC173; (2005)3MLJ85(SC); 2005(8)SCALE372; (2006)1SCC86

..... and for the observance of the regulations aforesaid without prejudice to his right to claim indemnity from his sub-contract.(f) the regulations aforesaid shall be deemed to be part of this contract and breach thereof shall be deemed to be breach of contract.'special conditions of the contract inter-alia provide as follows:'31 labour conditions:-(a) the contractor shall comply with ..... workmanship, or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, rights, matter, or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of, or relating to, the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, order, these conditions or otherwise concerning the works, or the execution or failure to execute the same, whether arising during the progress of ..... the local situation regarding materials, labour and other factors pertaining to the work before submitting this order. 2. i/we carefully studied the n.i.t. conditions of contract, specification, additional instructions, general rules and directions and other documents related to this work and i/we agree to execute the work accordingly.i/we do hereby tender for ..... the work was not completed within this time and time was extended. it appears that the work was not completed within the extended time also. the appellants terminated the contract and got the balance work completed from some other contractor. the respondent raised various claims which were rejected by the appellants. the respondent, therefore, moved an application under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 14 2005 (FN)

Schaffer Vs. Weast

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Nov-14-2005

..... per hearing. see department of education, j. chambers, j. harr, & a. dhanani, what are we spending on procedural safeguards in special education 1999 2000, p. 8 (may 2003) (prepared under contract by american institute for research, special education expenditure project). congress has also repeatedly amended the act in order to reduce its administrative and litigation-related costs. for example, in 1997 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 08 2005 (FN)

ibp, Inc. Vs. Alvarez

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Nov-08-2005

..... at the time of such activity, at the establishment or other place where such employee was employed, covering such activity, not inconsistent with a written or nonwritten contract, in effect at the time of such activity, between such employee, his agent, or collective-bargaining representative and his employer. 61 stat. 85 (codified at 29 u. s. c ..... employee engaged in prior to the date of the enactment of this act, except an activity which was compensable by either (1)?an express provision of a written or nonwritten contract in effect, at the time of such activity, between such employee, his agent, or collective-bargaining representative and his employer; or (2)?a custom or practice in effect, ..... relevant part: sec. 4.?relief from certain future claims under the fair labor standards act of 1938 (a)?except as provided in subsection (b) [which covers work compensable by contract or custom], no employer shall be subject to any liability or punishment under the fair labor standards act of 1938, as amended, on account of the failure of such employer ..... , congress passed the portal-to-portal act, amending certain provisions of the flsa. based on findings that judicial interpretations of the flsa had superseded long-established customs, practices, and contracts between employers and employees, thereby creating wholly unexpected liabilities, immense in amount and retroactive in operation, 61 stat. 84, it responded with two statutory remedies, the first relating to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 2005 (FN)

Castle Rock Vs. Gonzales

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-27-2005

..... , but the court nevertheless refused to treat that entitlement as a property interest within the meaning of the due process clause. footnote 19 as the analogy to a private security contract demonstrates, a person s interest in police enforcement has some ascertainable monetary value, ante , at 17. cf. merrill, the landscape of constitutional property, 86 va. l. rev. 885, 964, n ..... with a private firm.[ footnote 19 ] the fact that it is based on a statutory enactment and a judicial order entered for her special protection, rather than on a formal contract, does not provide a principled basis for refusing to consider it property worthy of constitutional protection.[ footnote 20 ] v because respondent had a property interest in the enforcement of the ..... of the due process clause. if a colorado statute enacted for her benefit, or a valid order entered by a colorado judge, created the functional equivalent of such a private contract by granting respondent an entitlement to mandatory individual protection by the local police force, that state-created right would also qualify as property entitled to constitutional protection. i do not ..... the statute could be said to make enforcement mandatory, that would not necessarily mean that respondent has an entitlement to enforcement. her alleged interest stems not from common law or contract, but only from a state s statutory scheme. if she was given a statutory entitlement, the court would expect to see some indication of that in the statute itself. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 2005 (FN)

Orff Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-23-2005

..... suits directly against the united states, as opposed to joinder of the united states as a necessary party defendant to permit a complete adjudication of rights under a reclamation contract. we therefore affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. it is so ordered. footnote 1 westlands subsequently intervened on appeal. footnote 2 the district court invited petitioners ..... example, the tucker act grants the united states court of federal claims jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the united states founded . . . upon any express or implied contract with the united states. 28 u. s. c. 1491(a)(1).[ footnote 2 ] the little tucker act grants district courts original jurisdiction, concurrent with the court of federal claims ..... insufficient to waive sovereign immunity. section 390uu grants consent to join the united states as a necessary party defendant in any suit to adjudicate certain rights under a federal reclamation contract. (emphasis added.) this language is best interpreted to grant consent to join the united states in an action between other parties for example, two water districts, or ..... california state water resources control board. see california, supra, at 652, and n. 7. the bureau distributes the water in accordance with its statutory and contractual obligations. it contracts with state irrigation districts to deliver water and to receive reimbursement for the costs of constructing, operating, and maintaining the works. in 1963, the united states agreed to a 40 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 2005 (FN)

Mayle Vs. Felix

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-23-2005

mayle v. felix - 04-563 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 mayle v. felix supreme court of the united states mayle, warden v . felix certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit no. 04 563.argued april 19, 2005 decided june 23, 2005 respondent felix was convicted of murder and robbery in california state court and sentenced to life imprisonment. his current application for federal habeas relief centers on two alleged trial-court errors, both involving the admission of out-of-court statements during the prosecutor s case-in-chief but otherwise unrelated. felix had made inculpatory statements during pretrial police interrogation. he alleged that those statements were coerced, and that their admission violated his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. he also alleged that the admission of a videotape recording of testimony of a prosecution witness violated the sixth amendment s confrontation clause. felix s conviction was affirmed on appeal and became final on august 12, 1997. under the one-year limitation period imposed by the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 (aedpa), 28 u. s. c. 2244(d)(1), felix had until august 12, 1998 to file a habeas petition in federal court. on may 8, 1998, in a timely filed habeas petition, felix asserted his confrontation clause challenge to admission of the videotaped prosecution witness testimony, but did not then challenge the admission of his own pretrial statements. on january 28, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 2005 (FN)

Graham County Soil and Water Conservation Dist. Vs. United States Ex R ...

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-20-2005

..... committed refer to the date on which the suspected violation occurs. i recognize that there is a relevant distinction in this case. in the typical case (say, the tort or contract case) the plaintiff must ultimately prove all the relevant allegations. here, the retaliation victim need not prove that her employer did in fact violate federal false claims law, but only ..... to alleged events. thus, a plaintiff s tort action is timely if he files it within, say, three years of the alleged negligently caused injury; a plaintiff s breach-of-contract action is timely if filed within, say, one year of the alleged breach. and a plaintiff who loses such an action because the defendant shows, say, that there was no .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2005 (FN)

Spector Vs. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-06-2005

..... and ceases to carry american passengers. this is again much like the situation presented in benz and mcculloch , where the application of american labor laws would have continued to govern contracts between foreign shipowners and their foreign crews well beyond their time in our waters. the purpose of the internal order clear-statement requirement is to avoid casually subjecting oceangoing vessels .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2005 (FN)

Gonzales Vs. Raich

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-06-2005

..... so far as to declare this question irrelevant. it asserts that the csa is constitutional even if california s current controls are effective, because state action can neither expand nor contract congress powers. ante , at 27, n. 38. the majority s assertion is misleading. regardless of state action, congress has the power to regulate intrastate economic activities that substantially affect interstate ..... , at 20, and finally to all production, distribution, and consumption of goods or services for which there is an established interstate market, ante , at 23. federal power expands, but never contracts, with each new locution. the majority is not interpreting the commerce clause, but rewriting it. the majority s rewriting of the commerce clause seems to be rooted in the belief .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 23 2005 (FN)

Lingle Vs. Chevron U. S. A. Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-23-2005

..... rent, defined as a percentage of the dealer s margin on retail sales of gasoline and other goods. in addition, chevron requires the lessee-dealer to enter into a supply contract, under which the dealer agrees to purchase from chevron whatever is necessary to satisfy demand at the station for chevron s product. chevron unilaterally sets the wholesale price of its .....

Tag this Judgment!


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