Crane V Lawrence - Judgment Search Results

R. Gopalakrishnan Vs. the State

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2002CriLJ47

LJ 1205;5) Union of India v. J. S. Khanna ;6) Sweet v. Parsley (1969) 1 All ER 347;7) Crane v. Lawrence (1890) 25 QBD 152;8) The King v. Chapman 1931 KBD606.5. In reply to the above submissions, Mr. E.

Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. and anr. Vs. V.M. Muthuramalingam, Income-t ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1980)14CTR(Mad)316; [1981]129ITR675(Mad)

to see clearly what the conduct is which will render a person liable to the penalty so imposed--vide Crane v. Lawrence [1890] 25 QBD 152:' The first and most elementary rule of construction is that it is to be

Yusofalli Mulla Noorbhoy Vs. the King

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1950)52BOMLR1

them, and in this connection reference may be made to the decision of the House of Lords in Crane v. Public Prosecutor [1921] 2 A.C. 299 But the omission of Government to take such a step, which was … Bowman (1834) 6 C.& P. 337 Rex v. Bates [1911] 2 K.B. 964 and Rex v. Marsham: Pethick Lawrence, Ex parte. [1912] 2 K.B. 362 It is true, as pointed out by Mr. Page, that those cases

Emperor Vs. Barendra Kumar Ghose

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.353

: 21 Cr. L.J. 849, the question of re-trial has been examined by the House of Lords in Crane v. Director of Public Prosecution (1921) 2 App. Cas. 299 at p. 331 : 90 L.J.K.B. 1160 : 125

insurance Company Vs. Dunham

Court: US Supreme Court

But the intolerance of the common law courts prohibited the exercise of it. In the early case of Crane v. Bell, 38 Hen. VIII, A.D. 1546, a Page 78 U. S. 35 prohibition was granted for this purpose. … [ Footnote 3 ] See Ex Parte Zellner, 9 Wall. 244. [ Footnote 4 ] The Steamer St. Lawrence, 1 Black 527. [ Footnote 5 ] The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 454. [ Footnote 6 ] 46

Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. Vs. Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

crane-carrying barge in connection with the erection of bulkheads), aff'd sub nom. Southern Log Cart & Supply Co. v. Lawrence, 86 F.9d 7 (CA5 1898). The city argues, to the contrary, that a proper application of the activity

The King Emperor Vs. Barendra Kumar Ghose

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1924Cal257

Das (1920) 47 Cal. 671, the question of re-trial has been examined by the House of Lords in Crane v. Director of Public Prosecution [1921] 2 A.C. 299, where the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in … further than the case of R. v. Upendra Nath Das (1914) 19 C.W.N. 653. In that case Sir Lawrence Jenkins, C.J. said : 'If there was no misdirection or other error as certified, the certificate was misconceived

Ex Parte Crane

Court: US Supreme Court

which acts only on the judicial acts, the judgments, and the decrees of inferior courts. In United States v. Lawrence, 3 Dall. 42-45, it was unanimously decided that this Court could not issue a mandamus to a district … Ex Parte Crane - 30 U.S. 190 (1831) U.S. Supreme Court Ex Parte Crane, 30 U.S. 5 Pet. 190 190 (1831)

Boyd Vs. Nebraska Ex Rel. Thayer

Court: US Supreme Court

evacuation declaring their intention of becoming British subjects became ipso facto, to all intents and purposes, American citizens. Crane v. Reeder, 25 Mich. 303. By Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution, "new states may be admitted … denial of the right of expatriation, which the political departments of this government have always united in asserting, Lawrence's Wheaton 925; Whart.Confl.Laws § 5; 8 Op.Attys.Gen. 139; 9 Op.Attys.Gen. 356; Act of Congress of July 27, 1868,

Gilmore Vs. Taylor

Court: US Supreme Court

We have previously stated that "the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants 'a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.'" Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 683 , 690 (1986) (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U. S. 479 , 485 … 335 Kaplan, Solicitor General, and Terence M. Madsen, Marcia L. Friedl, and Steven J. Zick, Assistant Attorneys General. Lawrence C. Marshall, by appointment of the Court, 506 U. S. 1018, argued the cause for respondent. With him