From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Eastern Air Lines v. Mahfoud

U.S.
Dec 10, 1985
474 U.S. 213 (1985)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

affirming a grant of prejudgment interest under the Warsaw Convention

Summary of this case from Maro Leather Co. v. Aerolineas Argentinas
See 5 Summaries

Opinion

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 83-1807.

Argued January 15, 1985 Reargued October 9, 1985 Decided December 10, 1985

729 F.2d 777, affirmed by an equally divided Court.

Richard M. Sharp reargued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Jeffrey C. Martin, Suzanne E. Meeker, Francis G. Weller, and Marc J. Yellin.

George E. Farrell reargued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

Page 213 Juanita M. Madole and Donald W. Madole filed a brief for Dina Avecilla et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

JUSTICE BRENNAN took no part in the decision of this case.

Summaries of

Eastern Air Lines v. Mahfoud

U.S.
Dec 10, 1985
474 U.S. 213 (1985)

affirming a grant of prejudgment interest under the Warsaw Convention

Summary of this case from Maro Leather Co. v. Aerolineas Argentinas

In Nyflot, the Supreme Court dismissed for want of a substantial federal question an appeal claiming that appellant had a sixth amendment right to counsel with respect to the decision whether to consent to a blood-alcohol test.

Summary of this case from McVeigh v. Smith

In Nyflot the Minnesota Supreme Court had rejected contentions that the due process clause and the sixth amendment guaranteed a right to counsel which extended to the decision whether to consent to testing.

Summary of this case from Langelier v. Coleman

In Nyflot, the Minnesota Supreme Court had rejected the contention that a detained driver has a federal constitutional right to consult counsel prior to deciding whether to take a breath test—an argument advanced by the driver under the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Summary of this case from Motor Vehicle Admin. v. Deering

In Nyflot v. Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety, 474 U.S. 1027, 1029, 106 S.Ct. 586, 587-88, 88, L.Ed.2d 567 (1985) (mem.)

Summary of this case from State v. Kanikaynar
Case details for

Eastern Air Lines v. Mahfoud

Case Details

Full title:EASTERN AIR LINES, INC. v . MAHFOUD ON BEHALF OF MAHFOUD ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Dec 10, 1985

Citations

474 U.S. 213 (1985)
106 S. Ct. 586

Citing Cases

Commonwealth v. Neary-French

Our decision is in line with the vast majority of jurisdictions that have addressed this issue. The Supreme…

McDONNELL v. COM'R OF PUBLIC SAFETY

1. What is the effect of Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subd. 1a (Supp. 1989) on the supreme court's interpretation of…

52 Citing Cases