7 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. United States Gypsum Company, Defendant-Appellee-Crossgreen1 sentence2015We are satisfied that the arbitrator’s decision “ ‘draws its essence’ from the contract and is sufficiently ‘grounded in the contract’ to be within the scope of his authority.” Jacinto, 120 R.I. at 913-14 , 391 A.2d at 1176 (quoting United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. United States Gypsum Co., 492 F.2d 713, 731, 732 (5th Cir.1974)). | 1 | 1 |
1800 Smith Street Associates, LP v. Gencarelligreen1 sentence2007This Court reviews questions of law, including those premised on contract interpretation, de novo. 1800 Smith Street Associates, L.P. v. Gencarelli, 888 A.2d 46, 52 (R.I.2005). | 1 | 1 |
McGuire v. Folly Landing Restaurant, Inc.green1 sentence1995See McGuire v. Folly Landing Restaurant, 636 A.2d 1325 , 1326 (R.I. 1994) (indemnity clauses are valid). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jacinto v. Egan
green
2 sentences2015We are satisfied that the arbitrator’s decision “ ‘draws its essence’ from the contract and is sufficiently ‘grounded in the contract’ to be within the scope of his authority.” Jacinto, 120 R.I. at 913-14 , 391 A.2d at 1176 (quoting United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. United States Gypsum Co., 492 F.2d 713, 731, 732 (5th Cir.1974)). 2015We are satisfied that the arbitrator’s decision “ ‘draws its essence’ from the contract and is sufficiently ‘grounded in the contract’ to be within the scope of his authority.” Jacinto, 120 R.I. at 913-14 , 391 A.2d at 1176 (quoting United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. United States Gypsum Co., 492 F.2d 713, 731, 732 (5th Cir.1974)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Rodrigues v. DePasquale Building & Realty Co.
green
1 sentence2009Realty Co. , 926 A.2d 616 (R.I. 2007), the Supreme Court held that the Superior Court had erred in finding the indemnity clause invalid, and that judgment should therefore enter for DePasquale. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Muldowney v. Weatherking Products, Inc.
green
1 sentence2005TCI and Taylor argue further that Steris cannot satisfy the indemnity standard set forth in Muldowney, 509 A.2d 441 (R.I. 1986). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Cosimini v. Atkinson-Kiewit Joint Venture
green
1 sentence2004Because [the court has] * * * narrowed [the subcontractor’s] performance obligation under the indemnity clause, the insurance obligation, by its own language, is equally limited.” Id. at 72-73 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
City of Burbank v. Glazer
green
2 sentences2000In regard to a full and fair opportunity to litigate, Marshall urges this Court to adopt the reasoning set forth in City of Burbank v. Glazer, 76 Ill.App.3d 294 , 32 Ill.Dec. 150 , 395 N.E.2d 97 (1979), in which the defendant was permitted to pursue an indemnity claim against a former codefendant despite the fact that the codefendant was granted a directed verdict in the original trial. 2000In regard to a full and fair opportunity to litigate, Marshall urges this Court to adopt the reasoning set forth in City of Burbank v. Glazer, 76 Ill.App.3d 294 , 32 Ill.Dec. 150 , 395 N.E.2d 97 (1979), in which the defendant was permitted to pursue an indemnity claim against a former codefendant despite the fact that the codefendant was granted a directed verdict in the original trial. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.