Court : US Supreme Court
Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams - 532 U.S. 105 (2001) OCTOBER TERM, 2000 Syllabus CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. v. ADAMS CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1379. Argued November 6, 2000-Decided March 21, 2001 A provision in respondent's application for work at petitioner electronics retailer required all employment disputes to be settled by arbitration. Mter he was hired, respondent filed a state-law employment discrimination action against petitioner, which then sued in federal court to enjoin the state-court action and to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The District Court entered the requested order. The Ninth Circuit reversed, interpreting 1 of the FAA-which excludes from that Act's coverage "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce" -to exempt all employment contracts from the FAA's reach. Held: The 1 exemptio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.494 OF2012JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) AND ANOTHER .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) WITH TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.151 OF2013TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.152 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.833 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.829 OF2013TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.1797 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.932 OF2013TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.1796 OF2013CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.144 OF2014WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.494 OF2012IN TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.313 OF2014TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.312 OF2014SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.2524 OF2014WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.37 OF2015Writ Petition (Civil) No.494 of 2012 & c onnected matters Page 1 of 567 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.220 OF2015CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.674 OF2015WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.829 OF2013TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.921 OF2015CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.470 OF2015WRIT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.13 OF2015Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record - Association and another Petitioner(s) versus Union of India Respondent(s) With |WRIT PETITION (C) No.14 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.18 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.23 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.24 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.70 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.83 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.108 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.124 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.209 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.309 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.310 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.323 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.341 OF2015| |TRANSFER PETITION(C) No.391 OF2015 |TRANSFER PETITION (C) No.971 OF2015 | | JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.Index |Sl.No.|Contents |Paragraphs|Pages | |1. |The Recusal Order | 1 - 18| 1 - | | | | |15 | | | | | | |2. |The Reference Order | 1 - 101| 16 - 169| |I |The Challenge | 1 - | 16 - | | | |9 |19 | |II. |The Background to the Challenge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.215 OF2005Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Versus Union of India and Another ...Petitioner(s) Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, CJI [for himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.]. I N D E X Heading S. No.A. Prologue B. Contentions in the Writ Petition Page No.3 10 C. Stand in the counter affidavit and the 14 applications for intervention D. Background of the Writ Petition D.1 P. Rathinams case The question of unconstitutionality of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code D.2 Gian Kaurs case The question of unconstitutionality of Section 306 of 18 19 22 2 the Indian Penal Code D.3 The approach in Aruna Shanbaug qua Passive Euthanasia vis--vis India D.4 The Reference E. Our analysis of Gian Kaur F. Our analysis of Aruna Shanbaug qua legislation 30 42 45 51 G. The Distinction between Active and Passive 52 Euthanasia H. Euthanasia : International Position H.1 U.K. Decisions: H.1.1 Airedale Case H.1.2 Late...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3453/2002 JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.& ANR. Appellants VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondents WITH C.A. No.6383-6421/1997, C.A. No.6422-6435/1997, C.A. No.6436/1997, C.A. No.6437-6440/1997 , C.A. No.3381-3400/1998, C.A. No.4651/1998, C.A. No.918/1999, C.A. No.2769/2000, C.A. No.4471/2000, C.A. No.3314/2001, C.A. No.3454/2002, C.A. No.3455/2002, C.A. No.3456-3459/2002, C.A. No.3460/2002, C.A. No.3461/2002, C.A. No.3462-3463/2002, C.A. No.3464/2002, C.A. No.3465/2002, C.A. No.3466/2002, C.A. No.3467/2002, C.A. No.3468/2002, C.A. No.3469/2002, C.A. No.3470/2002, C.A. No.3471/2002, C.A. No.4008/2002, C.A. No.5385/2002, C.A. No.5740/2002, C.A. No.5858/2002, W.P.(C) No.512/2003, W.P.(C) No.574/2003, C.A. No.2608/2003, C.A. No.2633/2003, C.A. No.2637/2003, C.A. No.2638/2003, C.A. No.3720-3722/2003, C.A. No.6331/2003, C.A. No.8241/2003, C.A. No.8242/2003, C.A. No.8243/2003, C.A. No.8244/2003, C.A. No.8245/2003, C.A. No.8246/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Cannon v. University of Chicago - 441 U.S. 677 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979) Cannon v. University of Chicago No. 77-926. Argued January 9, 1979 Decided May 14, 1979 441 U.S. 677 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Section 901(a) of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) provides in part that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Petitioner instituted litigation in Federal District Court, alleging that she had been excluded from participation in the medical education programs of respondent private universities on the basis of her gender and that these programs were receiving federal financial assistance at the time of her exclusion. The District Court granted respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4823 OF 201.(Arising out of SLP(C) No.20180 of 2010) K. Guruprasad Rao ....Appellant versus State of Karnataka and others ....Respondents JUDGMENT G.S. SINGHVI, J.1. Leave granted.2. With the hope of their immortalization, several Emperors, Kings and other rich people got built temples, churches, mosques and other buildings in different parts of the world including India. Many of these structures are not only marvels of architecture, but also represent the culture and heritage of the particular place and period. With the passage of time, these structures acquired the status of historical monuments, the preservation and protection of which has become a herculean task for successive generations. Legislations in other countries 3. The issue of preservation and protection of ancient and historical monuments has been a matter of concern for the Governments and private individuals alike. In his work titled ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.20982 OF2017INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ...APPELLANT (S) SHAILENDRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.& ORS. VERSUS WITH ...RESPONDENT (S) SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.10742 OF2008YOGESH KUMAR & ORS. ...PETITIONER (S) VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. ...RESPONDENT (S) WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.20920 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)Nos.26574-26575 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.28993 OF2011SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30198 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30192 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30142 OF20151 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30128 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.30203 OF2015CIVIL APPEAL No.4835 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)No.25289 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C)CC No.9842 OF2016SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.22356 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.31678 OF2015CIVIL APPEAL NO.4836 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.22527 OF2015SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.4705 OF2016SPECI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Morrison v. Olson - 487 U.S. 654 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) Morrison v. Olson No. 87-1279 Argued April 26, 1988 Decided June 29, 1988 487 U.S. 654 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus This case presents the question of the constitutionality of the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (Act). It arose when the House Judiciary Committee began an investigation into the Justice Department's role in a controversy between the House and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with regard to the Agency's limited production of certain documents that had been subpoenaed during an earlier House Investigation. The Judiciary Committee's Report suggested that an official of the Attorney General's Office (appellee Olson) had given false testimony during the earlier EPA investigation, and that two other officials of that Office (appellees Schmults and Dinkins) ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Cal. Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co. - 480 U.S. 572 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court Cal. Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987) California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co. No. 86-1200 Argued December 2, 1986 Decided March 24, 1987 480 U.S. 572 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Mining Act of 1872 authorizes a private citizen to enter federal lands to explore for mineral deposits, to perfect a mining claim, and to secure a patent to the land by complying with the requirements of the Act and regulations promulgated thereunder. Appellee Granite Rock Co. holds unpatented mining claims on federally owned lands in a national forest located in California. In accordance with federal regulations, Granite Rock obtained approval from the Forest Service in 1981 of its 6-year plan for mining limestone on the lands, and began to mine shortly thereafter. In 1983, the California Coastal Commission (Commission), acting pursuant ...
Tag this Judgment!