Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Contract Between The United States And The Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Jicarilla Apache Nation, United States
Contract Between The United States And The Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Jicarilla Apache Nation, United States
Native American Water Rights Settlement Project
Settlement Agreement: Contract between the US and the Jicarilla Apache Tribe (Dec. 8, 1992). Parties: Jicarilla Apache Nation and US. The contract will come into effect when certain decrees are entered, claims dismissed, and cases resolved. When a decree is entered in the water rights adjudication styled NM v. US of the NM San Juan River system added to the decree in NM v. Aragon, a second water rights adjudication in NM will fully describe the Nation’s reserved water rights, that is, diversion not to exceed 40K acre-feet per year from the two stream systems. This water will come from …
San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act Of 1992, San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act, United States 102nd Congress
San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act Of 1992, San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act, United States 102nd Congress
Native American Water Rights Settlement Project
Federal Legislation: San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 1992, Title 37 of An Act to authorize additional appropriations for the construction of the Buffalo Bill Dam and Reservoir, Shoshone Project, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, Wyoming (Oct. 30, 1992) PL 102-575, 106 Stat. 4600, 4740. Parties: San Carlos Apache Tribe, US, AZ, Salt River Project Agricultural Improve and Power District, Roosevelt Water Conservation District, Buckeye Irrigation District, Buckeye Water Conservation and Drainage District, Tempe, Chandler, Mesa, Glendale, Scottsdale, Gilbert and Central AZ Water Conservation District. Tribe is a part of the Gila Water Rights Adjudication. This Act ratifies …
Jicarilla Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act Of 1992, United States 102nd Congress
Jicarilla Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act Of 1992, United States 102nd Congress
Native American Water Rights Settlement Project
Federal legislation: Jicarilla Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 1992, PL 102-441, 106 Stat. 2237. Parties: Jicarilla Apache Nation, NM and the US. The US and the Tribal President are authorized to enter into a Settlement Contract. Sections 3 and 4 of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact should provide sufficient water. The Contract provides 33,500 a/f/y diversion from the Navajo Reservoir or Navajo River, and 6,500 a/f/y from the San Juan-Chama Project. Tribe is entitled to return flows and may subcontract for beneficial uses off reservation, but such uses are subject to state, federal and international law. The …
The Gains From Faith In An Unfaithful Agent: Settlement Conflicts Between Defendants And Liability Insurers, Michael J. Meurer
The Gains From Faith In An Unfaithful Agent: Settlement Conflicts Between Defendants And Liability Insurers, Michael J. Meurer
Faculty Scholarship
A pervasive problem in the settlement of liability litigation arises because liability insurers bundle their promise to indemnify the insured with a promise to represent the insured in settlement and litigation [see, e.g., Beckwith Machinery Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 638 F.Supp. 1179 (W.D. Pa. 1986)]. Standard policies not only require the insurer to pay for legal representation but, more importantly, give the insurer the privilege of controlling the litigation and settlement process. The problem is how to resolve the conflict of interest between the insurer and the insured that may arise during settlement negotiations. This conflict is manifest when …
Amendments To Local Court Rules Of The United States District Court For The Northern District Of Georgia, Georgia State University Law Review
Amendments To Local Court Rules Of The United States District Court For The Northern District Of Georgia, Georgia State University Law Review
Georgia State University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Northern Cheyenne Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act Of 1992, United States 102nd Congress
Northern Cheyenne Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act Of 1992, United States 102nd Congress
Native American Water Rights Settlement Project
Federal Legislation: Northern Cheyenne Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Act of 1992. PL 102-374, 106 Stat. 1186. Parties: US & Northern Cheyenne Nation. The Act ratifies a Compact with MT on June 11, 1991. The Northern Cheyenne Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement Trust Fund will be established in the US Treasury, but the Tribe shall make a $11.5 million loan available to MT to assist with the Tongue River Dam Project costs (estimated at $52.2 million). For the Tribe itself, there are authorized $7.4 million in 1995, $9 million in 1996 and $5.1 million in 1997. $3.5 million is authorized …
Settlement In Securities Fraud: Is Settlement Promoting Litigation - In Re Jiffy Lube Securities Litigation, Brian R. Hajicek
Settlement In Securities Fraud: Is Settlement Promoting Litigation - In Re Jiffy Lube Securities Litigation, Brian R. Hajicek
Journal of Dispute Resolution
In the complex securities fraud arena, partial pretrial settlement in cases involving multiple defendants would appear to reduce litigation in the dispute. However, conflict over the proper method of allocating responsibility for a damage award among settling and non-settling defendants can in fact increase litigation. Federal courts disagree as to which method most fairly and equitably apportions damage liability. In re Jiffy Lube Securities Litigation is the most recent case that touches upon the issue of damage allocation among settling and non-settling defendants. This Note will address competing policy considerations which drive courts to choose different allocative methods.
Shackling The Secretary's Hands: Limits To Authorizing Whistle-Blower Settlements Under Section 210 Of The Energy Reorganization Act - Macktal V. Secretary Of Labor, Jay M. Dade
Journal of Dispute Resolution
In seeking to encourage nuclear industry employees to report safety concerns, Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA) acts to protect such "whistle-blowers" in the event they are terminated or discriminated against because of their whistle-blowing activities.2 When an employee and an employer negotiate a Section 210 "whistle-blower" complaint and subsequently submit the settlement for approval, the Secretary of Labor faces certain encumbrances when reviewing the agreement . This limitation on review arises when certain provisions may be in violation of public policy.4 In Macktal v. Secretary of Labor, the United States Court of Appeals for the …
Southern General Insurance Co. V. Holt: Defining "Duty" In The Duty-To-Settle Doctrine As Applied To Third-Party Insurance Claims In Georgia, Suzan E. Roth
Georgia State University Law Review
No abstract provided.