Face Value - Judgment Search Results

Seling Vs. Young

Court: US Supreme Court

then can federal courts pronounce a statute that on its face is civil to be criminal such an approach protects federal law u s const art i 10 cl 1 emphases added leaves no doubt that it is a prohibition upon legislative

Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. Sara Lee Bakery

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2000Mad497

rectangular lines in yellow bordered in red surround the funny face b since the design is novel and original the applicant

Hill Vs. Colorado

Court: US Supreme Court

..... as the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men olmstead v united states 277 u s ..... s fellow citizens which he called the most comprehensive and most valued by civilized men ibid emphasis added to the extent that ..... of communication for petitioners they want to engage in peaceful face to face communication with individuals the petitioners believe are about to commit .....

Stenberg Vs. Carhart

Court: US Supreme Court

..... itself was fairly described as the unrestrained imposition of the court s own extraconstitutional value preferences on the american people thornburgh v 981 american college of obstetricians and gynecologists ..... recognizes involve virtually irreconcilable points of view ante at 921 the specific question we face today is whether nebraska s attempt to proscribe a particular method of abortion commonly .....

Santaandnbsp;fe Independent School Dist. Vs. Doe

Court: US Supreme Court

..... keep in mind the myriad subtle ways in which establishment clause values can be eroded lynch v donnelly 465 u s 668 694 ..... constitutional safe harbor it sought the policy is invalid on its face because it establishes an improper majoritarian election on religion and ..... the school district s student message program is invalid on its face under the establishment clause but even more disturbing than its .....

Bengal Trading Syndicate Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: AIR2001MP71; 2000(2)MPHT499

do not constitute an error of law apparent on the face of the award even an award with reasons are not in question a omit and add portions were much b valuation shown in work order no 4 was wrongly calculated c

Standard Chartered Bank and Another Vs. the Custodian and Another

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: [2000]102CompCas314(SC); JT2000(4)SC560; 2000(3)SCALE310; (2000)6SCC427

..... the appellant bank purchased 13 m t n l bonds of the face value of rs 20 crores from the bank of karad and by pay ..... there had been a non delivery of six crores units of the face value of rs 79 80 crores which had been purchased by the appellant ..... when the company capitalizes its profits by transferring an amount equal to the face value of the share from its reserve to the nominal capital in other .....

Mitchell Vs. Helms

Court: US Supreme Court

..... educating children towards the fullness of christian life to specifically teach catholic principles and christian values id at 146a the mission statements and objectives outlined by the other roman catholic ..... labeling of government property and government oversight cannot be accepted as sufficient in the face of record evidence that the safeguard provisions proved to be empty phrases in jefferson .....

Jai Ram Ahir and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Bihar

Court: Patna

flash torch the torch light would not fall on their faces but upon the floor of the walls of the house

Agrawal Krishi Sewa Kendra Vs. Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation Ltd.

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: 2001(5)MPHT192

..... pay the principal and interest thereof 12 per annum on the bill value of the goods supplied from the date of expiry of the ..... it comprise legal misconduct which is complete if the arbitrator on the face of the award arrives at an inconsistent conclusion even on his ..... invalid in section 30 c would include an error apparent on the face of the record where the award suffers from several patent errors .....