Explicit - Judgment Search Results

Arizona Vs. California

Court: US Supreme Court

arizona v california 460 u s 605 1983 u s supreme court arizona v california 460 u s 605 1983...

Heckler Vs. Lopez

Court: US Supreme Court

heckler v lopez 463 u s 1328 1983 u s supreme court heckler v lopez 463 u s 1328 1983...

Workmen of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Refining Division) B ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1984SC356; (1984)ILLJ35SC; 1983(2)SCALE736; (1983)4SCC470; [1984]1SCR251; 1984(1)SLJ198(SC); 1984(16)LC8(SC)

..... before a duly enacted law can be judicially nullified it must be forbidden by some explicit restriction in the constitution the attitude of judicial humility which this consideration enjoins is not .....

S.K. Bhatia and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1983SC988; 1983(2)SCALE95; (1983)4SCC194; [1983]3SCR595

..... the civil court is not to be readily inferred but such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied one of the corollaries flowing from the principle that the constitution .....

Lakshman and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1983SC656; 1983(1)SCALE577; (1983)3SCC275; [1983]3SCR124

..... d g since the language of s 178 of the contract act is clear and explicit if any hardship and inconvenience is felt because such a practice of treating the receipt .....

Bishnu Ram Borah and anr. Vs. Parag Saikia and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1984SC898; 1983(2)SCALE1231; (1984)2SCC488; [1984]1SCR825; 1984(16)LC417(SC)

..... the legislation come in for consideration where the language of an act is clear and explicit the court must give effect to it whatever may be the consequence for in that .....

Kiranmal Zumerlal Borana Marawadi Vs. Dnyanoba Bajirao Khot and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1983SC461; (1983)4SCC223

..... at the provisions of sub sections 3 and 4 of section 31 will make it explicitly clear that any application in any reference meaning thereby even an application under section 20 .....

Smith Vs. Wade

Court: US Supreme Court

..... a private cause of action for persons suffering from racial discrimination in voting registration and explicitly allowed recovery of a 500 civil penalty by the person aggrieved similar provision for recovery ..... the court pursues necessarily is accompanied by costs as our decisions regarding common law immunities explicitly recognize see cases cited in n 6 supra the imposition of personal liability on .....

Director, Owcp Vs. Perini North River Assocs.

Court: US Supreme Court

..... history indicates that congress did not intend to exclude employees traditionally covered moreover congress explicitly deleted language from the act that was found in calbeck v travelers insurance co ..... as i have mentioned above footnote 2 21 the unpredictability of coverage was mentioned explicitly in the legislative history and the burdens of duplicate insurance for employees who might .....

Zant Vs. Stephens

Court: US Supreme Court

..... with the court that the stromberg rule is plainly distinguishable since the jury explicitly returned two concededly valid aggravating circumstances thereby conclusively negating the inference that it ..... decision that is the finding of statutory aggravating circumstances as indicated above street explicitly stated that its rule regarding the treatment of aggravating circumstances is inapplicable when .....