Search : U.S. Supreme Court : Contracts : From 10/01/05 To 07/01/06
Number of summaries found: 6
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Contracts, ERISA, Government Law, Injury And Tort Law, Insurance Law |
| Title: | Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh |
| Date: | 06/15/06 |
| Case Number: | 05–200 |
| Summary: | Dismissal, for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, of petitioner-carrier's suit seeking recovery from the proceeds of state-court litigation for a beneficiary's medical care is affirmed since 28 U.S.C. section 1331, authorizing jurisdiction over "civil actions arising under the...laws...of the United States," did not encompass the carrier's action. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Contracts, Intellectual Property, Manufacturing, Patent |
| Title: | Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Indep. Ink, Inc. |
| Date: | 03/01/06 |
| Case Number: | 04–1329 |
| Summary: | In the context of antitrust claims, since a patent does not necessarily confer market power upon a patentee, in all cases involving a "tying" arrangement, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant has market power in the tying product. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Bankruptcy Law, Civil Rights, Construction, Contracts, Food & Beverages |
| Title: | Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. MacDonald |
| Date: | 02/22/06 |
| Case Number: | 04–593 |
| Summary: | A plaintiff cannot state a claim under 42 U.S.C. section 1981 unless he has or would have rights under the existing or proposed contract that he wishes "to make and enforce." Section 1981 plaintiffs must identify injuries flowing from a racially motivated breach of their own contractual relationship, not of someone else's. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Contracts, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration |
| Title: | Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna |
| Date: | 02/21/06 |
| Case Number: | 04-1264 |
| Summary: | With regards to contracts containing an arbitration clause, a challenge to the validity of a contract as a whole and not specifically to an arbitration clause within, must go to an arbitrator, not a court, regardless of whether it is brought in federal or state court. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Banking Law, Civil Procedure, Contracts, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Tax Law |
| Title: | Wachovia Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Schmidt |
| Date: | 01/17/06 |
| Case Number: | 04–1186 |
| Summary: | For purposes of federal-court diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1348, a national bank is a citizen of the state in which its main office, as set forth in its articles of association, is located. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Contracts, Injury And Tort Law, Property Law & Real Estate |
| Title: | Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche |
| Date: | 11/29/05 |
| Case Number: | 04–712 |
| Summary: | Defendants may remove an action on the basis of diversity of citizenship if there is complete diversity between all named plaintiffs and all named defendants, and no defendant is a citizen of the forum State; defendants need not negate the existence of a potential defendant whose presence in the action would destroy diversity. |