Court : US Supreme Court
Steelworkers v. United States - 361 U.S. 39 (1959) U.S. Supreme Court Steelworkers v. United States, 361 U.S. 39 (1959) United Steelworkers of America v. United States No. 504 Argued November 3, 1959 Decided November 7, 1959 361 U.S. 39 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus Under 208 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, the United States sued in a Federal District Court to enjoin the continuation of an industry-wide strike in the steel industry. After considering affidavits filed by the parties and finding that the strike had closed down a substantial part of the Nation's steel production capacity and that its continuation would "imperil the national health and safety," the District Court enjoined continuation of the strike. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Held: The judgment is sustained. Pp. 361 U. S. 40 -44. 1. Once it determined that the statutory conditions of breadth of involvement and peril to the national health ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
District of Columbia v. Heller - 07-290 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA etal. v . HELLER certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 07290.Argued March 18, 2008Decided June 26, 2008 District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D.C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Dennis v. United States - 341 U.S. 494 (1951) U.S. Supreme Court Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) Dennis v. United States No. 336 Argued December 4, 1950 Decided June 4, 1951 341 U.S. 494 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. As construed and applied in this case, 2(a)(1), 2(a)(3) and 3 of the Smith Act, 54 Stat. 671, making it a crime for any person knowingly or willfully to advocate the overthrow or destruction of the Government of the United States by force or violence, to organize or help to organize any group which does so, or to conspire to do so, do not violate the First Amendment or other provisions of the Bill of Rights and do not violate the First or Fifth Amendments because of indefiniteness. Pp. 341 U. S. 495 -499, 341 U. S. 517 . 2. Petitioners, leaders of the Communist Party in this country, were indicted in a federal district court under 3 of the Smith Act for willfully and knowingly conspiring ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.13 OF2015Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record - Association and another Petitioner(s) versus Union of India Respondent(s) With |WRIT PETITION (C) No.14 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.18 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.23 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.24 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.70 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.83 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.108 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.124 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.209 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.309 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.310 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.323 OF2015| |WRIT PETITION (C) No.341 OF2015| |TRANSFER PETITION(C) No.391 OF2015 |TRANSFER PETITION (C) No.971 OF2015 | | JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.Index |Sl.No.|Contents |Paragraphs|Pages | |1. |The Recusal Order | 1 - 18| 1 - | | | | |15 | | | | | | |2. |The Reference Order | 1 - 101| 16 - 169| |I |The Challenge | 1 - | 16 - | | | |9 |19 | |II. |The Background to the Challenge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
City of Lafayette v. Louisiana P&L; Co. - 435 U.S. 389 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court City of Lafayette v. Louisiana P&L; Co., 435 U.S. 389 (1978) City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co. No. 76-864 Argued October 4, 1977 Decided March 29, 1978 435 U.S. 389 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner cities, which own and operate electric utility systems both within and beyond their respective city limits as authorized by Louisiana law, brought an action in District Court against respondent investor-owned electric utility with which petitioners compete, alleging that it committed various federal antitrust offenses that injured petitioners in the operation of their electric utility systems. Respondent counterclaimed, alleging that petitioners had committed various antitrust offenses that injured respondent in its business and property. Petitioners moved to dismiss the counterclaim on the ground that, as cities and subdivision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 753/2017 MRF LIMITED. Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate ..... Plaintiff with Mr. DebarshiBhuyan, Advocate. versus METRO TYRES LIMITED. ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Pravin Anand with Ms. Prachi Agarwal and Mr. Rohan Sharma, Advocates Reserved on :06. h May, 2019 Date of Decision:01. t July, 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J I.A. 12770/2017 1. Important issues of law arise for consideration in the present case, namely, whether in a suit for copyright infringement of a cinematograph film, the infringing copy has to be an exact copy made by a process of duplication or a substantial/material copy. Further, whether the copyright infringement test as laid down in R.G. Anand v. M/s Deluxe Films and Ors. (1978) 4 SCC118with regard to literary works is CS (COMM) 753/2017 Page 1 of 46 applicable to cinematograph films and whether the expression to make a copy of the film means just to make a physical cop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath - 341 U.S. 123 (1951) U.S. Supreme Court Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123 (1951) Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath No. 8 Argued October 11, 1950 Decided April 30, 1951 * 341 U.S. 123 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus Purporting to act under Part III, 3 of Executive Order No. 9835, the Attorney General, without notice or hearing, designated the three petitioner organizations as Communist in a list furnished to the Loyalty Review Board for use in connection with determinations of disloyalty of government employees. The Board disseminated the list to all departments and agencies of the Government. Petitioners sued for declaratory judgments and injunctive relief. They alleged that their organizations were engaged in charitable or civic activities or in the business of fraternal insurance; all three implied an attitude of coope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. - 488 U.S. 469 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989) City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co. No. 87-998 Argued October 5, 1988 Decided January 23, 1989 488 U.S. 469 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Appellant city adopted a Minority Business Utilization Plan (Plan) requiring prime contractors awarded city construction contracts to subcontract at least 30% of the dollar amount of each contract to one or more "Minority Business Enterprises" (MBE's), which the Plan defined to include a business from anywhere in the country at least 51% of which is owned and controlled by black, Spanish-speaking, Oriental, Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut citizens. Although the Plan declared that it was "remedial" in nature, it was adopted after a public hearing at which no direct evidence was presented that the city had discriminated on the basis of race in letting contracts, or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Clinton v. City of New York - 524 U.S. 417 (1998) OCTOBER TERM, 1997 Syllabus CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA No. 97-1374. Argued April 27, 1998-Decided June 25,1998 Last Term, this Court determined on expedited review that Members of Congress did not have standing to maintain a constitutional challenge to the Line Item Veto Act (Act), 2 U. S. C. 691 et seq., because they had not alleged a sufficiently concrete injury. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811 . Within two months, the President exercised his authority under the Act by canceling 4722(c) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which waived the Federal Government's statutory right to recoupment of as much as $2.6 billion in taxes that the State of New York had levied against Medicaid providers, and 968 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which permitted the owners of certain food refiners and processors t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Singapore Supreme Court
Vinodh Coomaraswamy JC: 1. For virtually all of her working life, the plaintiff has worked in the flowers, gifts, hampers and wreaths business. In 2008, the defendant acquired the business in which she was employed. After the acquisition, the plaintiff continued to serve as the sales manager of this business without interruption, but now with the defendant as her employer. Her employment agreement contains express post-termination non-competition and non-solicitation covenants. 2. In November 2011, the plaintiff resigned from the defendant's employment. In December 2011, the plaintiff's notice period ended and her employment with the defendant came to an end. Shortly afterwards, she informed it that she intended to set up her own business selling flowers and gifts. The defendant reminded the plaintiff of her non-competition covenant and threatened to sue her if she breached it. In the end, it was the plaintiff who sued the defendant in the Subordinate Courts (as the State Courts were t...
Tag this Judgment!