Court : US Supreme Court
SEC v. New England Elec. Sys. - 384 U.S. 176 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court SEC v. New England Elec. Sys., 384 U.S. 176 (1966) Securities and Exchange Commission v. New England Electric System No. 636 Argued March 23, 1966 Decided May 16, 1966 384 U.S. 176 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Syllabus The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought proceedings under 11(b)(1) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 to determine the extent to which respondent New England Electric System (NEES), a holding company registered under 5, could lawfully retain control over its electric, gas, and other properties. The SEC held that NEES' subsidiaries supplying electricity to retail customers in four New England States composed an "integrated electric utility system," and both the SEC and NEES agree that its gas utility subsidiaries serving retail customers in Massachusetts constitute an "integrated gas utility system" under the Act. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Brown v. Glines - 444 U.S. 348 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348 (1980) Brown v. Glines No. 78-1006 Argued November 6, 1979 Decided January 21, 1980 444 U.S. 348 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Air Force regulations require members of that service to obtain approval from their commanders before circulating petitions on Air Force bases. Respondent Air Force Reserve officer was removed from active duty for distributing on an Air Force base petitions to Members of Congress and the Secretary of Defense, which complained about Air Force grooming standards, without having obtained approval of the base commander as required by the regulations. Respondent then brought suit in District Court challenging the validity of the regulations. That court granted summary judgment for respondent, declaring the regulations facially invalid, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Held: The regulations are not invalid on their f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1970)2MLJ256
P. Ramakrishnan, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 145 of 1959, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli. The prior facts relating to this second appeal can be briefly set down.2. The plaintiff, the respondent to this second appeal, K. Sundararajan, filed the suit for payment of compensation, after taking an account of the profits of the defendant firm, Messrs. Cauvery Sugars and Chemicals' Limited, represented by its General Manager, Pettaivaithalai, in the Tiruchirapalli District. The plaintiff alleged thus. The plaintiff is an agricultural graduate. For the establishment of a sugar factory under the name 'Kulittalai Sugar Factory Limited' in Pettaivaithalai Village, he obtained an industrial licence from the Government of India under the Industries Act, 1951. The plaintiff ' worked out the area and prepared the ground for the successful working of the said sugar factory.' The defendant is a company sponsored in 1948 for the purpos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2024 INSC562IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE / ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.2317 of 2011 The State of Punjab & Ors. Appellants Versus Davinder Singh & Ors. Respondents With C.A. No.6936 of 2015 With C.A. No.5597 of 2010 With W.P.(C) No.21 of 2023 With C.A. No.5593 of 2010 With S.L.P.(C) No.30766 of 2010 With S.L.P.(C) No.8701 of 2011 With S.L.P.(C) Nos.36500-36501 of 2011 With T.C.(C) No.38 of 2011 1 With T.P.(C) No.464 of 2015 With W.P.(C) No.1477 of 2019 With C.A. No.5586 of 2010 With C.A. No.5598 of 2010 With C.A. Nos. 5595-5596 of 2010 With C.A. No.2324 of 2011 With T.C.(C) No.37 of 2011 With C.A. No.5589 of 2010 With C.A. No.5600 of 2010 With C.A. No.5587 of 2010 With S.L.P.(C) Nos.5454-5459 of 2011 With C.A. No.2318 of 2011 With C.A. No.289 of 2014 And With W.P.(C) No.562 of 2022 2 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI A. Background ................................................................................................ 5 i. Relevant c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Rel. Comm'n - 413 U.S. 376 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Rel. Comm'n, 413 U.S. 376 (1973) Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations No. 72-419 Argued March 20, 1973 Decided June 21, 1973 413 U.S. 376 CERTIORARI TO THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus Following a complaint and hearing, respondent Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations held that petitioner had violated a city ordinance by using an advertising system in its daily newspaper whereby employment opportunities are published under headings designating job preference by sex. On appeal from affirmance of the Commission's cease and desist order, the court below barred petitioner from referring to sex in employment headings, unless the want ads placed beneath them relate to employment opportunities not subject to the ordinance's prohibition against sex discrimination. Petitioner contends that the ordinance contravenes its constitu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey - 505 U.S. 833 (1992) OCTOBER TERM, 1991 Syllabus PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA ET AL. v. CASEY, GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 91-744. Argued April 22, 1992-Decided June 29, 1992* At issue are five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982: 3205, which requires that a woman seeking an abortion give her informed consent prior to the procedure, and specifies that she be provided with certain information at least 24 hours before the abortion is performed; 3206, which mandates the informed consent of one parent for a minor to obtain an abortion, but provides a judicial bypass procedure; 3209, which commands that, unless certain exceptions apply, a married woman seeking an abortion must sign a statement indicating that she has notified her husband; 3203, which defines a "medical emergency" that will excuse compliance w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Department of Treasury v. Fabe - 508 U.S. 491 (1993) OCTOBER TERM, 1992 Syllabus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY ET AL. v. FABE, SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE OF OHIO CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 91-1513. Argued December 8, 1992-Decided June 11, 1993 In proceedings under Ohio law to liquidate an insolvent insurance company, the United States asserted that its claims as obligee on various of the company's surety bonds were entitled to first priority under 31 U. S. C. 3713(a)(1)(A)(iii). Respondent Fabe, the liquidator appointed by the state court, brought a declaratory judgment action in the Federal District Court to establish that priority in such proceedings is governed by an Ohio statute that ranks governmental claims behind (1) administrative expenses, (2) specified wage claims, (3) policyholders' claims, and (4) general creditors' claims. Fabe argued that the federal priority statute does not pre-empt the Ohio law because t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Case-Swayne Co., Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc. - 389 U.S. 384 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court Case-Swayne Co., Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc., 389 U.S. 384 (1967) Case-Swayne Co., Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc. No. 66 Argued October 18-19, 1967 Decided December 18, 1967 389 U.S. 384 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner brought a treble damage Clayton Act suit for alleged violations by respondent of 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The District Court granted a directed verdict for respondent. The Court of Appeals reversed as to the 2 complaint, but affirmed the dismissal of the 1 charge, holding that Sunkist qualified as a cooperative organization under the Capper-Volstead Act, and thus could not be held for an intra-organizational conspiracy to restrain trade. Section 1 of that Act privileges collective activity in processing and marketing for "persons engaged in the production of agricultural products as farmers, planters, ranchm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Maine v. Thiboutot - 448 U.S. 1 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980) Maine v. Thiboutot No. 79-838 Argued April 22, 1980 Decided June 25, 1980 448 U.S. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MAINE Syllabus Held: 1. Title 42 U.S.C. 1983 -- which provides that anyone who, under color of state statute, regulation, or custom deprives another of any rights, privileges, or immunities "secured by the Constitution and laws" shall be liable to the injured party -- encompasses claims based on purely statutory violations of federal law, such as respondents' state court claim that petitioners had deprived them of welfare benefits to which they were entitled under the federal Social Security Act. Given that Congress attached no modifiers to the phrase "and laws," the plain language of the statute embraces respondents' claim, and even were the language ambiguous, this Court's earlier decisions, including cases involving Social Security Act claims, explic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. May the Special Immigration Appeals Commission ("SIAC"), a superior court of record established by statute, when hearing an appeal under section 25 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 by a person certified and detained under sections 21 and 23 of that Act, receive evidence which has or may have been procured by torture inflicted, in order to obtain evidence, by officials of a foreign state without the complicity of the British authorities? That is the central question which the House must answer in these appeals. The appellants, relying on the common law of England, on the European Convention on Human Rights and on principles of public international law, submit that the question must be answered with an emphatic negative. The Secretary of State agrees that this answer would be appropriate in any case where the torture had been inflicted by or with the complicity of the British authorities. He further states that it is not his intenti...
Tag this Judgment!