Court : US Supreme Court
..... the bill." these statements do not avail appellants. prior to the 1972 act, 611(a) provided that the administrator "shall prescribe and amend such rules and regulations as he may find necessary to provide for the control and abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom." 82 stat. 395. under 611(b)(3), the ..... be published in the federal register. congress did not leave faa to act at large, but provided in 611(d), as amended, particularized standards: "in prescribing and amending standards and regulations under this section, the faa shall -- " "(1) consider relevant available data relating to aircraft noise and sonic boom, including the results of research, development, ..... and interested persons," shall conduct a study of various facets of the aircraft noise problems and report to the congress within nine months, [ footnote 4 ] i.e., by july, 1973. the 1972 act, by amending 611 of the federal page 411 u. s. 629 aviation act, [ footnote 5 ] also involves the environmental protection agency (epa) .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
..... community air carrier. generally the montreal convention has force in the uk by virtue of section 1 of the carriage by air act 1961 as amended, but not in relation to community air carriers to the extent that the montreal regulation has force in the uk: section 1(2) ..... surprise anyone.'). moreover, while private suits are an important vehicle for enforcing the anti-discrimination laws, they are hardly the only means of preventing discrimination on board aircraft. federal law provides other remedies. responsibility for oversight of the airline industry has been entrusted to the secretary of transportation. the kings could, therefore, have filed ..... of a disabled passenger, contrary to the requirements of the civil aviation (access to air travel for disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility) regulations 2007 (si 2007/1895) ("the uk disability regulations"). 2. the uk disability regulations implement regulation (ec) no 1107/2006 of the european parliament and the council concerning .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
..... "and every such place shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be made and kept safe for any person working there" were added by section 5 of the 1959 act. the amendment adding them was proposed late in the passage of the bill. it was felt to be "a real fault and a gap in the existing legislation" that it covered only ..... example, the ground that the employee was injured at his workplace on his way to the lavatory, rather than on his way to his workplace: see davies v de havilland aircraft co ltd [1951] 1 kb 50; rose v colville's ltd 1950 slt (notes) 72; dorman long and co ltd v hillier [1951] 1 all er 357 and prince v ..... answered affirmatively that it becomes necessary to consider whether it was 'reasonably practicable' to avert the danger." more recently, in robb v salamis (m and i) ltd [2006] ukhl 56; [2007] icr 175, lord hope confirmed the relevance of reasonable foreseeability to article 5(1) of the framework directive 89/391/eec (imposing on employers the duty to ensure the safety .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... retroactive effect. id., at 282 283, n. 35. the court, lastly, adds in a footnote that the fsia differs from the statutory amendment at issue in hughes aircraft because in hughes aircraft the jurisdictional limitation attached directly to the cause of action and so ensured that suit could be brought only in accordance with the jurisdictional provision ..... in the case, we concluded that 102 of the civil rights act of 1991 should not apply to cases arising before its enactment. 511 u. s., at 293. footnote 15 of course, the fsia differs from the statutory amendment at issue in hughes aircraft . that amendment was attached to the statute that created the cause of action, ..... 1187 (cd cal. 2001), and the court of appeals affirmed, 317 f. 3d 954 (ca9 2002), as amended, 327 f. 3d 1246 (2003). we granted certiorari limited to the question whether the foreign sovereign immunities act of 1976 (fsia or act), 28 u. s. c. 1602 et seq ., which grants foreign states immunity from the jurisdiction of federal .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... s. 233 -234. 3. epa's taking, without a warrant, of aerial photographs of petitioner's plant complex from an aircraft lawfully in public navigable airspace was not a search prohibited by the fourth amendment. the open areas of an industrial plant complex such as petitioner's are not analogous to the "curtilage" of a dwelling, which ..... id. at 314. the court did not view the use of sophisticated photographic equipment by epa as controlling. the court of appeals then held that epa clearly acted within its statutory powers even absent express authorization for aerial surveillance, concluding that the delegation of general investigative authority to epa, similar to that of other law ..... footnote 2/8 ] i agree with the court's determination that the use of aerial photography as an inspection technique, absent fourth amendment constraints, does not exceed the scope of epa's authority under the clean air act, 42 u.s.c. 7414(a), and to this extent, i join part iii of the court's opinion. [ footnote .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
..... examination and pending a decision to give or refuse him leave to enter." paragraphs 21(1) and (2) provide (as amended by section 10 of and paragraph 10 of the schedule to the immigration act 1988): "(1) a person liable to detention or detained under paragraph 16 above may, under the written authority of an immigration ..... minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status (the minimum standards directive) which applies to applications for asylum lodged after 1 december 2007. it provides: "member states may apply the safe third country concept only where the competent authorities are satisfied that a person seeking asylum will be treated ..... form an important part of the background. the leading provision is section 11(1) of the immigration act 1971, which provides: "a person arriving in the united kingdom by ship or aircraft shall for purposes of this act be deemed not to enter the united kingdom unless and until he disembarks, and on disembarkation at a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... any external boundary of the united states." the court of appeals upheld the search on the basis of the act and regulation. held: the warrantless search of petitioner's automobile, made without probable cause or consent, violated the fourth amendment. pp. 413 u. s. 269 -275. (a) the search cannot be justified on the basis ..... are divided upon the question of the constitutionality of area search warrants such as described in mr. justice powell's concurring opinion. [ footnote 4 ] with respect to aircraft, 8 cfr 281.1 defines "reasonable distance" as "any distance fixed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section." paragraph (b) authorizes the commissioner of immigration and ..... any external boundary of the united states, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the united states and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... official interference. under the circumstances, and even though the intrusion incident to a stop is modest, we conclude that it is not "reasonable" under the fourth amendment to make such stops on a random basis. [ footnote 8 ] the government also contends that the public interest in enforcing conditions on legal alien entry justifies ..... distance from any external boundary of the united states, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the united states and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle. . . ." under current regulations, this authority may be exercised anywhere within 100 miles of the border. 8 cfr 287.1(a) (1975 ..... sources of statutory authority page 422 u. s. 877 for stopping cars without warrants in the border areas. section 287(a)(1) of the immigration and nationality act, 8 u.s.c. 1357(a)(1), authorizes any officer or employee of the immigration and naturalization service (ins) without a warrant, "to interrogate any alien .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... court had not directly addressed the issue, the court certified to the florida supreme court the question whether, absent exigent circumstances, the warrantless seizure of an automobile under the act violated the fourth amendment. id., at 555. in a divided opinion, the florida supreme court answered the certified question in the affirmative, quashed the first district court of appeal's opinion, and ..... a brief for the n ational association of criminal defense lawyers as amicus curiae urging affirmance. 1 that act provides, in relevant part: "any contraband article, vessel, motor vehicle, aircraft, other personal property, or real property used in violation of any provision of the florida contraband forfeiture act, or in, upon, or by means of which any violation of the florida contraband forfeiture .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... see zurcher v. stanford daily, 436 u. s. 547 , 577580 (1978) (stevens, j., dissenting). the decision by congress in 1978 to amend the comprehensive drug abuse prevention and control act of 1970, 84 stat. 1236, to authorize the seizure and forfeiture of proceeds of illegal drug transactions, see 92 stat. 3777, also marked an ..... . "(3) all property which is used, or intended for use, as a container for property described in paragraph (1) or (2). "(4) all conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles, or vessels, which are used, or are intended for use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, or concealment ..... ) (codifying the relation-back principle for criminal forfeiture). indeed, if the court finds that the transferee has a valid claim under the statute, it must "amend the order of forfeiture." 853(n)(6). the owner/transferee distinction is found in other provisions throughout the united states code, and the traditional relation-back doctrine .....
Tag this Judgment!