Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen

Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, 512 U.S. 1288 (1994)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1994-09-26
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that although Sec. 402(b) applies to amendments, it does not apply to terminations
  • holding that although § 402(b) applies to amendments, it does not apply to terminations

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
33 opinions

C. A. 3d Cir. Motions of Chamber of Commerce of the United States and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari granted. Brief of petitioner is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Tuesday, November 8, 1994. Brief of respondents is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 3 p.m., Tuesday, December 6, 1994. A reply brief, if any, is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on *1289 or before 3 p.m., Tuesday, December 20, 1994. This Court’s Rule 29.2 does not apply.