David V Cahill - Judgment Search Results

Karcher Vs. Daggett

Court: US Supreme Court

456 U.S. 966 (1982); O'Sullivan v. Brier, 540 F.Supp. 1200 (Kan.1982); Donnelly v. Meskill, 345 F.Supp. 962 (Conn.1972); David v. Cahill, 342 F.Supp. 463 (NJ 1972); Skolnick v. State Electoral Board of Illinois, 336 F.Supp. 839 (ND Ill.1971). [ … lowest population deviation in favor of plans with slightly higher deviations that reflected consistent state policies. See, e.g., David v. Cahill, 342 F.Supp. 463 (NJ 1972); Skolnick v. State Electoral Board of Illinois, 336 F.Supp. at 842-846. A number

Ferguson Vs. Moore-mccormack Lines, Inc.

Court: US Supreme Court

v. Saxon, 284 U. S. 458 ; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff reversed. Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. David, 284 U. S. 460 ; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff reversed. Page 352 U. S. 555 Atlantic Coast … plaintiff reversed. Strickland v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 350 U.S. 893;* reversal of judgment for plaintiff reversed. Cahill v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co., 350 U.S. 898;* 351 U. S. 183 ; reversal of

United States Vs. Morrison

Court: US Supreme Court

of Hon. William M. McCulloch, Hon. John V. Lindsay, Hon. William T. Cahill, Hon. Garner E. Shriver, Hon. Clark MacGregor, Hon. Charles McC. Mathias, Hon. … respondents in both cases. With him on the brief for respondent Morrison were Hans F. Bader and W David Paxton. Joseph Graham Painter, Jr., filed a brief for respondent Crawford. t tBriefs of amici curiae urging reversal … United States v. Morrison - 529 U.S. 598 (2000) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus UNITED STATES v. MORRISON ET AL. CERTIORARI TO

Hurley Vs. Irish-american Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, I ...

Court: US Supreme Court

Duncan and William M. Connolly. John Ward argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were David Duncan, Gretchen Van Ness, Gary Buseck, Mary Bonauto, Larry W Yackle, and Charles S. Sims. * JUSTICE SOUTER … Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc. - 515 U.S. 557 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus … et al. by Gary B. Born, Ernest L. Mathews, Jr., Maura R. Cahill, and Michael P. McDonald; and for the Christian Legal Society et al.

Lucas Vs. South Carolina Coastal Council

Court: US Supreme Court

A. Camden Lewis argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Gerald M. Finkel and David J. Bederman. C. C. Harness III argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were T. … Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council - 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) OCTOBER TERM, 1991 Syllabus LUCAS v. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL … and Office Parks et al. by John Holland Foote and John F. Cahill; for the Pacific Legal Foundation by Ronald A. Zumbrun, Edward J. Connor,

India General Navigation and Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. Gopal Chandra Guin

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal80

North-Western Railway Co. (1862) 13 C.B.N.S. 818 The Great Northern Railway Company v. Shephard (1852) 8 Exch. 30 David Keays v. Belfast Railway Company (1861) H.L. Cas. 556 and Shaik Roheemulla v. Palmer (1864) Coryton's Rep. 133 … not afford any protection to the carrier.4. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the cases of Cahill v. The London and North-Western Railway Co. (1862) 13 C.B.N.S. 818 The Great Northern Railway Company v. Shephard

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another (R ...

Court: UK Supreme Court

a later case, Backer v Secretary of State for the Environment (1984) 47 P and CR 149, Mr David Widdicombe QC, sitting as a deputy judge, expressed doubt about the decision in Impey. He said (p 154) … Units, New Chapters in Planning History and Inconsistent Permissions [2009] 2 JPL 161 by Satnam Choongh and Jeremy Cahill QC. It is true that at one point in the Petticoat Lane case (p 1117D), Widgery LJ said

Kunei Minz Vs. R.C. Nayak and anr.

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 106(2008)CLT706; (2009)ILLJ632Ori

of this Court while hearing this appeal found that the Division Bench decision of this Court in C. David v. Gobind Chandra Mishra and Anr. 1997 (I) OLR 353, and the single Judge decision in Golakha Chandra Bej

Ramesh Jairamdas Jaising Vs. Shri Bansi Jairamdas Jaising and Others

Court: Mumbai

is a clear contempt in the face of the Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Leila David V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Reported at AIR 2010 SC 682, after considering the relevant law at

The Commissioner of Income Tax-LTU and Another Vs. Whirlpool of India ...

Court: Delhi

Whirlpool USA was only incidental. On the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sassoon J. David v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 26, it was submitted that such expense incurred by WOIL wholly or exclusively for