Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Hardinge Co.
363 U.S. 828
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1960-06-20
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- meaning to be given contract provision must be one which carries out intent of parties as determined by circumstances under which contract was made
- Congress intended to prevent subsidized lines from diverting subsidy funds to unsubsidized domestic operations "to the disadvantage of an unsubsidized operator"
- "Mutual plan policies are `participating' policies in that... such policies are entitled to share in the profits of the company to the extent that such profits are apportioned from time to time to the respective mutual plan policies by the company's Board of Directors."
- characterizing capacity claim as non-jurisdictional
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Hardinge Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 41 opinions
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.