Summary
holding that district court has power to enforce agreement
Summary of this case from United States v. SparksOpinion
No. 76-155.
October 4, 1976, October TERM, 1976.
C.A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 531 F. 2d 1368.
From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
Allied Witan Co. v. Aro Corp.
U.S.
Oct 4, 1976
429 U.S. 862 (1976)
Summaries of
Allied Witan Co. v. Aro Corp.
U.S.
Oct 4, 1976
429 U.S. 862 (1976)
holding that district court has power to enforce agreement
Summary of this case from United States v. Sparksholding that assault as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. § 113(d) does not require intent to injure
Summary of this case from U.S. v. Padillaenforcing settlement agreement only where court had discretion, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), to reopen litigation
Summary of this case from Rolex Watch, U.S.A. v. Bulova Watch Co.noting that the "magistrate was therefore correct in refusing to read into subdivision (d) the requirement of intent to do bodily harm"
Summary of this case from United States v. FitzgeraldCase details for
Allied Witan Co. v. Aro Corp.
Case Details
Full title:ALLIED WITAN Co. v. ARO CORP
Court:U.S.
Date published: Oct 4, 1976
Citations
429 U.S. 862 (1976)
Citing Cases
Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Allied Chemical Corp.
However, the Lear decision militates against reading such provisions into a settlement agreement. Although…
United States v. BausAs a legal matter, it is well-accepted that the material breach of a settlement agreement which has been…