Constitution Of India Article 368 Power Of Parliament To Amend The Constitution And Procedure Therefor - Judgment Search Results

Wainwright Vs. Spenkelink

Court : US Supreme Court

relatively limited authority found open to the states under the constitution in the above cited cases could turn out as a the claim himself or he had held the claim in reserve an insurance policy of sorts to spring on the federal could in fact result in a situation where states are powerless to carry out a death sentence even though it has do so if the state conforms its trial and sentencing procedures to the requirements enunciated in this court s cases considering involved are bound to recur in later cases i am therefore filing this opinion dissenting from the court s action

Raju Alias Rajendra Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1979WLN144

opinion that the facts set out in the final report constitute an offence he can take cognizance of the offence under a reasonable belief in relation thereto suckett v farmers state bank of boone 228 n w 51 54 209 iowa 487 order of the nature under attack nor can any such powers be implied there is certainly no obligation on the magistrate to take cognizance of offence under the code of criminal procedure 1973 hereinafter referred to as the new code and therefore likely to defeat this salutary provision of law i am therefore of the view that the magistrate can derive his own

Biles Vs. Watkins

Court : US Supreme Court

would mean that the state supreme court s action was constitutionally forbidden and in these circumstances the conviction cannot stand see 956 1942 stromberg v california 283 u s 359 367 368 1931 accordingly i dissent from denial of the petition for that murder is the killing of a human being without authority of law by any means or in any manner when finding of forcible rape we found that fundamental principles of procedural fairness had been violated even though the indictment charged forcible in the perpetration or commission of the crime of kidnapping therefore the court further instructs the jury that if you believe

Lenhard Vs. Wolff

Court : US Supreme Court

capital sentence underscores the need for individualized consideration as a constitutional requirement in imposing the death sentence 438 u s at finally carried out third bishop s testimony before the nevada board of pardons reveals that he considers it undignified to ask the state s assistance in committing suicide society is not powerless however to resist a defendant s effort to prompt the sanctioned suicide furthermore he contended society has an overriding eighth amendment interest in ensuring that capital punishment is imposed only in dissenting page 444 u s 807 813 iii moreover the procedures in this case did not even comply with the requirements sentencer is not presented with all available mitigating evidence and therefore cannot make a rational decision as to the propriety of

Spenkelink Vs. Wainwright

Court : US Supreme Court

to him by the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution of the united states in presnell supra this court held applicant rights secured to him by the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution of the united states in presnell supra presnell supra this court held that the fundamental principles of procedural fairness enunciated in cole v arkansas 333 u s 196 other members of the court would have voted differently i therefore granted the application pending referral to the next scheduled conference

Carmona Vs. Ward

Court : US Supreme Court

by page 439 u s 1091 1097 collateral offenses cannot constitutionally be punished as if it were always so linked that he may someday benefit from the grace of a parole board id at 668 clark j dissenting footnote omitted that another rather the court of appeals relied on a law review article which notes that cocaine use does not produce tolerance or as to constitute a cruel and unusual punishment id at 368 quoting mcdonald v commonwealth 173 mass 322 328 53 n opinion denationalization for wartime desertion thus while recognizing that the power to prescribe punishments rests in the first instance with the should the court abdicate the function conferred by the eighth amendment to determine whether application of a given legislative judgment results crime involved by considering the well understood and undisputed operating procedures of the dirty business involved and its disastrous consequences 576

Acf Industries, Inc., Carter Carburetor Div. Vs. E.E.O.C.

Court : US Supreme Court

united states 1977 pp 13 15 1978 and by the board of regents of the american college of trial lawyers footnote to have committed the compound error of using the mandamus power to mask a questionable jurisdictional decision our cases have emphasized other recommendations has circulated for comment a number of proposed amendments to the rules footnote 5 in a letter to the to the problem of abuses in the use of pretrial procedures with a view to appropriate action by state and federal vital to the proper functioning of the federal courts i therefore dissent from the denial of certiorari page 439 u s

California Vs. Minjares

Court : US Supreme Court

made federal courts accomplices in the willful disobedience of a constitution they are sworn to uphold id at 223 in mapp and a roll of pennies in a wrapper from the bank used by safeway when the officer who initially stopped the to believe that the defendant had intoxicating liquors and related articles in his possession the search proved the affiant correct producing s 206 1960 there this court relied upon its supervisory power over the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts exclusionary rule seemed grounded upon an interpretation of the fourth amendment itself in holding that illegally seized evidence must be excluded many states have set up courts of claims or other procedures so that an individual can as a matter of state that the fourteenth amendment did incorporate the exclusionary rule and therefore adherence to that rule by the states was mandatory the

Williams Vs. Zbaraz

Court : US Supreme Court

to have an abortion if the judgment is stayed the constitutional right to choose will for many be meaningless and in is sought in a case within this court s appellate jurisdiction is whether five justices are likely to conclude that the the constitutionality of both the illinois statute and the hyde amendment the district court held both provisions to be unconstitutional on medically necessary and a class of physicians who perform such procedures and are certified to receive reimbursement for necessary medical services to favor the plaintiffs the applications for a stay are therefore denied footnotes footnote 1 public law 95 480 210 92

Symm Vs. U.S

Court : US Supreme Court

case such as this one are statutory as well as constitutional 437 u s at 373 n 12 n 12 1978 state of texas and waller county in mt healthy city board of education v doyle 429 u s 274 278 279 may determine to be necessary to implement the twenty sixth article of amendment to the constitution of the united states 42 observed that as against a plaintiff s claim of additional power over a pendent party the reach of the statute conferring 1973j d 1973bb and the fourteenth fifteenth and twenty sixth amendments pursuant to 42 u s c 1973bb a 2 2 from her job as a county employee brought a 1983 civil rights claim against county officials and a state law claim to the united states constitution if the case were here therefore on a petition for certiorari and fell within our discretionary