Explain - Judgment Search Results

Ferc Vs. Mississippi

Court: US Supreme Court

..... ratemaking criteria for use by quasi legislative utilities commissions justice o connor fails to explain however why this does not implicate her concern that w hile engaged in congressionally ..... m farrand ed 1911 hereinafter farrand abbreviations expanded in this and subsequent quotations hamilton subsequently explained to the people of new york that the constitution marked the difference between a .....

United States Vs. Valenzuela-bernal

Court: US Supreme Court

..... benefit the defendant the conceivable benefit test was satisfied without requiring the defendant to explain what beneficial evidence would have been provided by the alien whenever as here the ..... adopted by the court of appeals significantly constrains the government s prosecutorial discretion as explained by the united states because of budget limitations and the unavailability of adequate detention .....

Oregon Vs. Kennedy

Court: US Supreme Court

..... examination he acknowledged that he had once filed an unrelated criminal complaint against respondent but explained that no action had been taken on his complaint on redirect examination the court ..... he had filed a criminal complaint against respondent the witness eventually acknowledged this fact but explained that no action had been taken on his complaint on redirect examination the prosecutor .....

Sher Chand Vs. the State

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 1983CriLJ1482

..... undoubtedly a circumstance of such a definite nature which if not explained on a contrary hypothesis will certainly lead to the conclusion ..... circumstance of such a clinching nature which even if not explained on a contrary hypothesis will unerringly lead to the conclusion ..... quite manifest that on every occasion whenever he had to explain the suspicious disappearance of his wife the appellant took a .....

Toll Vs. Moreno

Court: US Supreme Court

..... that many of the court s decisions concerning alienage classifications such as takahashi are better explained in preemption than in equal protection terms see e g perry modern equal protection a ..... fishing licenses to aliens who were ineligible for citizenship the language emphasized by the court explains that s tate laws which impose discriminatory burdens upon the entrance or residence of aliens .....

Northern Pipeline Vs. Marathon Pipe Line

Court: US Supreme Court

..... structure and also to guarantee that the process of adjudication itself remained impartial hamilton explained the importance of an independent judiciary periodical appointments however regulated or by whomsoever made ..... with the justices concurring in the judgment footnote 2 7 the majority does not explain why the constitutional grant of power over the territories to congress is sufficient to .....

Tibbs Vs. Florida

Court: US Supreme Court

..... see hudson v louisiana 450 u s 40 1981 footnote 11 other courts similarly have explained the difference between evidentiary weight and evidentiary sufficiency in united states v lincoln 630 f ..... standard of evidentiary sufficiency the double jeopardy clause would bar reprosecution the majority fails to explain why the state should be allowed another try where its proof has been held inadequate .....

Merrill Lynch Vs. Curran

Court: US Supreme Court

..... of an implied private remedy violates the separation of powers doctrine as justice frankfurter explained courts are organs with historic antecedents which bring with them well defined powers they ..... in introducing the house bill representative poage the chairman of the house agriculture committee explained this development at some length see 119 cong rec 41333 1973 representative thone a .....

Sumner Vs. Mata

Court: US Supreme Court

..... the statutory presumption of correctness of the state court findings or explain why the presumption did not apply in light of the factors ..... applies the court of appeals should either apply the presumption or explain why it is not applicable in view of the factors listed ..... that in all cases federal courts must apply 2254 d or explain why it was inapplicable no court reviewing the grant of an .....

Weinberger Vs. Romero-barcelo

Court: US Supreme Court

..... 456 u s 310 consideration of the permit application it explained that the navy s technical violations were not causing any appreciable ..... report to the 1972 page 456 u s 316 amendments explains that the permit program would be enacted because the committee recognizes ..... adjudication of their validity in any balancing process the court explained special deference must be given to the public interest page 456 .....