Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"
This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the
disclaimer .
Did you mean Nate resource?
Your query +natur +resource returned 3 results.
 |
OPINION/ORDER 2001) *This matter was argued on June 22. The case was reassigned on June 30. The issue presented in this appeal is whether a state court judgment. The state court declaratory judgment requiring Horsehead to indemnify Paramount is sufficiently final to be given pr eclusive effect. Despite the fact that damages have yet to be decided. We find that the scope of the indemnity provision is sufficiently broad to encompass the identical issues in the federal CERCLA contribution case. I. Background At the heart of this appeal is the interplay between two sources of liability for the cost to remedy environmental damage a contractual indemnification pr ovision and statutory liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. Those clauses will be interpreted under traditional contract law principles. Or a detriment to the promisee the indemnification clause is enforceable. 419 N.E.2d 332 (N.Y. 1981) (holding that a written promise to indemnify co shar eholders against disproportionate loss was supported by legally sufficient consideration and therefore was enfor ceable). |
 |
CHAPMAN V. AI TRANSP. (10/2/2000, NO. 97-8838) Chapman's ADA claims were tried before a jury. Those issues have to do with an employer's ability to select its own criteria for making employment decisions and with the permissibility of using subjective criteria. As we will explain in due course. It turns out that general corporate credibility issue is not presented by the record. While we have the case. We will also use it to decide whether a district court may consider a losing party's financial status in awarding costs to the prevailing party.
|
|
CHAPMAN V. AI TRANSP. (10/2/2000, NO. 97-8838) Chapman's ADA claims were tried before a jury. Those issues have to do with an employer's ability to select its own criteria for making employment decisions and with the permissibility of using subjective criteria. As we will explain in due course. It turns out that general corporate credibility issue is not presented by the record. While we have the case. We will also use it to decide whether a district court may consider a losing party's financial status in awarding costs to the prevailing party.
|