Explicator - Judgment Search Results

Taylor Vs. Illinois

Court: US Supreme Court

..... identified until after the 11th hour has passed if a pattern of discovery violations is explicable only on the assumption that the violations were designed to conceal a plan to present ..... discovery sanctions that exclude criminal defense evidence i before addressing the merits i pause to explicate what i take as implicit in the court s conclusion that the defendant s constitutional .....

Varadaraja theatres (P.) Ltd. Vs. Wealth-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Reported in: (1989)29ITD29(Mad.)

..... or indirectly connected with the assessee the object and purpose of sub section 2 as explicated from the speech of the finance minister was not to strike at honest and bona .....

United States Vs. Taylor

Court: US Supreme Court

..... considerations balance should not lightly be disturbed iii because the district court did not fully explicate its reasons for dismissing with prejudice the substantive drug charges against respondent we are left .....

FranklIn Vs. Lynaugh

Court: US Supreme Court

..... the jury consider it even if an appellate court may question its weight our cases explicating the role of mitigating evidence in capital sentencing have rigorously enforced one simple rule a .....

Pinter Vs. Dahl

Court: US Supreme Court

..... 1 primary liability to one who solicits securities sales for financial gain pinter assumes without explication that liability is not limited to the person who actually parts title with the securities .....

Christianson Vs. Colt Indus.

Court: US Supreme Court

..... circuit was the first to decide the jurisdictional issue that the federal circuit did not explicate its rationale is irrelevant for the law of the case turns on whether a court .....

Harish Chandra Kapoor Vs. Air India and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR669

..... the off the cuff reaction taken immediately after the incident may be passed over as explicable wrath an incident giving rise to dismay and embarrassment if not unnecessary apprehension had taken .....

Sirsilk Ltd. Vs. Textiles Committee and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1989SC317; JT1988(4)SC92; 1988(2)SCALE975; 1989Supp(1)SCC168; [1988]Supp2SCR880

..... yarn see the new encyclopaedia britannica 15th edition vol 18 p 173 there was no explicable reason for the legislature to have excluded rayon yarn and nylon yarn from the purview .....

Pierce Vs. Underwood

Court: US Supreme Court

..... u s 565 while this phrase is often mentioned in the legislative history as the explication of substantially justified this alternative phraseology is inherently no more precise than the statutory language .....

Kadrmas Vs. Dickinson Pub. Schs.

Court: US Supreme Court

..... u s 452 1985 stevens j concurring footnote omitted in this case justice marshall accurately explicates the harm to certain members of the disadvantaged class and since the supreme court of .....