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

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Punnu Ram

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : 1985CriLJ1270

valuable right referred to above would stand denied this would constitute in itself sufficient prejudice to the accused so as to report of public analyst to get the sample of the article of food kept by the local health authority analysed by result of analysis was not delivered to the local health authority within a period of 45 days from the date of no gsr 4 e da jan 4 1977 before the amendment it was in the following terms after the analysis has are generally speaking directory the purpose is to incorporate certain procedural instructions for strict compliance by public functionaries nevertheless non compliance has lead to the aforesaid denial of right 14 it therefore follows that the violation of the time limit given in

Degarmo Vs. Texas

Court : US Supreme Court

today but even if i agreed that capital punishment is constitutional if imposed in a rational and nondiscriminatory manner i remain freakish or discriminatory manner it is a price the eighth amendment will not tolerate i dissent and would grant the petition believe that the unconstitutionality of capital punishment depends upon the procedures under which the penalty is inflicted in my view the

Pernsley Vs. Harris

Court : US Supreme Court

pennsylvania constitution and the eighth amendment of the united states constitution since 1976 a full time court appointed special master has and ordering fines should the district court exercise its equitable powers as sought in this second suit the philadelphia prisons may prison conditions violated both the pennsylvania constitution and the eighth amendment of the united states constitution since 1976 a full time of appeals nevertheless found younger abstention restricted to pending state criminal or quasi criminal proceedings initiated by the state our cases

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. Vs. Sheffield

Court : US Supreme Court

to alaska s and that the coast guard retains the power to modify its regulations relating to deballasting lend support to former alaska stat ann 46 03 750 e supp 1977 amended in 1980 and cur page 471 u s 1140 1141 should probably not be overstated however design specifications and operating procedures are in many respects inextricably linked and this linkage is case in which we should exercise our discretionary jurisdiction i therefore dissent from the denial of certiorari footnotes footnote 1 moreover

Busby Vs. Louisiana

Court : US Supreme Court

court decided caldwell there the court held that it is constitutionally impermissible to rest a death sentence on a determination made of the sentencing phase that the jury is given the authority to make a binding recommendation to the trial judge as case was imposed in violation of the eighth and fourteenth amendments as interpreted in caldwell supra our usual practice when an refusal to vacate that sentence is an unwarranted departure from procedures that we follow routinely in the most insignificant case i supra 472 u s at 341 petitioner s death sentence therefore cannot stand iii the death sentence in this case was

LoraIn Journal Co. Vs. Milkovich

Court : US Supreme Court

474 u s 953 954 standard defines the level of constitutional protection appropriate in the context of defamation of a public yoder 406 u s 205 213 1532 1972 brown v board of education 347 u s 483 493 691 1954 the a public figure and that the contents of the challenged article were facts which if false are not protected by the reports concerning private individuals see 418 u s at 365 368 3021 brennan j dissenting consequently the rules we adopt to to determine an individual s status as public or private powerfully affect the manner in which the press decides what to u s at 85 we recognized there however that first amendment protection cannot turn on formalistic tests of how high up they can least afford the expense of damages awards i therefore dissent and would grant certiorari in order to review this

Stewart Vs. Texas

Court : US Supreme Court

factual premise or not for purposes of determining whether the constitution has been violated therefore we simply cannot discount the grave introduced some evidence corroborating this story kelly was promised in exchange for his testimony that he would receive no more than cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the eighth and fourteenth amendments see gregg v georgia 428 u s 153 231 2973 even though having no intent to commit it tex penal code ann 7 02 b 1974 see ruiz v state 579 code ann 19 03 a 2 supp 1985 in theory therefore a person cannot be required to face the death penalty

Nyflot Vs. Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety

Court : US Supreme Court

provided by state law then turning to nyflot s federal constitutional challenge the court held that no sixth amendment right to banc plurality given these varying results i would note probable jurisdiction to settle the question presented 1983 nyflot now appeals claiming that she had a sixth amendment right to counsel with respect to the decision whether to to pass field sobriety or breath tests the actual police procedures may not be manipulated so as to change the time

Oettinger Vs. Oettinger

Court : US Supreme Court

valid the state trial court considered and rejected appellant s constitutional argument the trial court noted that the laws effective in similar provision existed for the husband for a husband to reserve the fruits of his separate property to himself he had jurisdictional statement appellant again asserts that the application of former article 2386 constitutes a violation of equal protection i believe that defective see parham v hughes 441 u s 347 361 368 1750 1754d 269 1979 white j dissenting further i do presented by this case insubstantial consequently i would note probable jurisdiction footnotes footnote article 2386 stated the fruits of the paraphernal thus normally fall into the community property see la civ code ann arts 2402 2404 west 1971 under louisiana law at

Hagerty Vs. Keller

Court : US Supreme Court

state law deprived him of a right secured by the constitution and laws of the united states petitioner had not alleged orleans parish civil district court but foley was without any power or authority under state law to grant or deny continuances both petitioner and his attorney under federal rule of appellate procedure 38 and under 28 u s c 1912 and 1927 from bringing similar frivolous appeals in the future the court therefore remanded to the district court for an apportionment of the