Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3153 OF2022(@ SLP(CIVIL) No.30193 of 2017]. MANIBEN MAGANBHAI BHARIYA APPELLANT(S) v. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DAHOD & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3154 OF2022(@ SLP(CIVIL) No.30834 of 2017]. CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3155 OF2022(@ SLP(CIVIL) No.30809 of 2017]. CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3156 OF2022(@ SLP(CIVIL) No.30820 of 2017]. CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3157 OF2022(@ SLP(CIVIL) No.5392 of 2018]. AND CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3158 OF2022(@ SLP(CIVIL) No.29011 of 2018]. 1 JUDGMENT Rastogi, J.1. I have had the advantage of going through the judgment penned by my brother Abhay S. Oka, J.I entirely agree with the conclusions which my erudite Brother has drawn, based on the remarkable process of reasoning. I wish to add few lines and express my views not because the judgment requires any further elaboration but looking for the question of law that emerged of considerable importance.2. The moot question w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
McCollum v. Board of Education - 333 U.S. 203 (1948) U.S. Supreme Court McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District No. 71, Champaign County, Illinois No. 90 Argued December 8, 1947 Decided March 8, 1948 333 U.S. 203 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus With the permission of a board of education, granted under its general supervisory powers over the use of public school buildings, religious teachers, employed subject to the approval and supervision of the superintendent of schools by a private religious group including representatives of the Catholic, Protestant and Jewish faiths, gave religious instruction in public school buildings once each week. Pupils whose parents so requested were excused from their secular classes during the periods of religious instruction and were required to attend the religious classes; but other pupils were not released from their public school duties, whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
McGowan v. Maryland - 366 U.S. 420 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961) McGowan v. Maryland No. 8 Argued December 8, 1960 Decided May 29, 1961 366 U.S. 420 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Syllabus Appellants, employees of a large department store on a highway in Anne Arundel County, Md., were convicted and fined in a Maryland State Court for selling on Sunday a loose-leaf binder, a can of floor wax, a stapler, staples and a toy, in violation of Md.Ann.Code, Art. 27, 521, which generally prohibits the sale on Sunday of all merchandise except the retail sale of tobacco products, confectioneries, milk, bread, fruit, gasoline, oils, greases, drugs, medicines, newspapers and periodicals. Recent amendments now except from the prohibition the retail sale in Anne Arundel County of all foodstuffs, automobile and boating accessories, flowers, toilet goods, hospital supplies and souvenirs, and exempt entirely any retail establishment in that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
In re Gault - 387 U.S. 1 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) In re Gault No. 116 Argued December 6, 1966 Decided May 15, 1967 387 U.S. 1 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA Syllabus Appellants' 15-year-old son, Gerald Gault, was taken into custody as the result of a complaint that he had made lewd telephone calls. After hearings before a juvenile court judge, Gerald was ordered committed to the State Industrial School as a juvenile delinquent until he should reach majority. Appellants brought a habeas corpus action in the state courts to challenge the constitutionality of the Arizona Juvenile Code and the procedure actually used in Gerald's case, on the ground of denial of various procedural due process rights. The State Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the writ. Agreeing that the constitutional guarantee of due process applies to proceedings in which juveniles are charged as delinquents, the court held that the Arizona Juvenile Code impliedly in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. - 400 U.S. 542 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542 (1971) Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. No. 73 Argued December 9, 1970 Decided January 25, 1971 400 U.S. 542 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer may not, in the absence of business necessity, refuse to hire women with pre-school-age children while hiring men with such children. 411 F.2d 1, vacated and remanded. Page 400 U. S. 543 PER CURIAM. Petitioner Mrs. Ida Phillips commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 * alleging that she had been denied employment because of her sex. The District Court granted summary judgment for Martin Marietta Corp. (Martin) on the basis of the following showing: (1) in 1966, Martin informed Mrs. Phillips that it was n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Paul v. Davis - 424 U.S. 693 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) Paul v. Davis No. 74-891 Argued November 4, 1975 Decided March 23, 1976 424 U.S. 693 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus A photograph of respondent bearing his name was included in a "flyer" of "active shoplifters," after he had been arrested on a shoplifting charge in Louisville, Ky. After that charge had been dismissed, respondent brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against petitioner police chiefs, who had distributed the flyer to area merchants, alleging that petitioners' action under color of law deprived him of his constitutional rights. The District Court granted petitioners' motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals reversed, relying on Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433 . Held: 1. Petitioners' action in distributing the flyer did not deprive respondent of any "liberty" or "property" rights secured against state depriv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Board of Ed. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. v. Grumet - 512 U.S. 687 (1994) OCTOBER TERM, 1993 Syllabus BOARD OF EDUCATION OF KIRYAS JOEL VILLAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT v. GRUMET CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK No. 93-517. Argued March 30, 1994-Decided June 27,1994* The New York village of Kiryas Joel is a religious enclave of Satmar Hasidim, practitioners of a strict form of Judaism. Its incorporators intentionally drew its boundaries under the State's general village incorporation law to exclude all but Satmars. The village fell within the Monroe-Woodbury Central School District until a special state statute, 1989 N. Y. Laws, ch. 748, carved out a separate district that follows village lines. Although the statute gives a locally elected school board plenary authority over primary and secondary education in the village, the board currently runs only a special education program for handicapped children; other village children attend private religious schools, which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Agostini v. Felton - 521 U.S. 203 (1997) OCTOBER TERM, 1996 Syllabus AGOSTINI ET AL. v. FELTON ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 96-552. Argued April 15, 1997-Decided June 23,1997* In Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U. S. 402 , 413, this Court held that New York City's program that sent public school teachers into parochial schools to provide remedial education to disadvantaged children pursuant to Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 necessitated an excessive entanglement of church and state and violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. On remand, the District Court entered a permanent injunction reflecting that ruling. Some 10 years later, petitioners-the parties bound by the injunction-filed motions in the same court seeking relief from the injunction's operation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5). They emphasized the significant costs of complying with Aguilar and the assertions ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS etal. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 11393.Argued March 26, 27, 28, 2012Decided June 28, 2012[ 1 ] In 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in order to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care. One key provision is the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to maintain minimum essential healt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Md. NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus COLEMAN v. COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 101016.Argued January 11, 2012Decided March 20, 2012 The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) entitles an employee to take up to 12 work weeks of unpaid leave per year for (A) the care of a newborn son or daughter; (B) the adoption or foster-care placement of a child; (C) the care of a spouse, son, daughter, or parent with a serious medical condition; and (D) the employees own serious health condition when the condit...
Tag this Judgment!