Court : US Supreme Court
Steamship Company v. Joliffe - 69 U.S. 450 (1864) U.S. Supreme Court Steamship Company v. Joliffe, 69 U.S. 2 Wall. 450 450 (1864) Steamship Company v. Joliffe 69 U.S. (2 Wall.) 450 ERROR TO THE COUNTY COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Syllabus 1. When a right has arisen upon a contract or a transaction in the nature of a contract authorized by statute and has been so far perfected that nothing remains to be done by the party asserting it, the repeal of the statute does not affect it or an action for its enforcement. It has become a vested right, which stands independent of the statute. Ex. gr., where a pilot, licensed under a statute, had tendered his services to pilot a vessel out of port and such services were refused, his claim to the half-pilotage fees, allowed by the statute in such cases, became perfect, and the subsequent repeal of the statute does not affect a judgment rendered in an action brought to recover the claim, or the jurisdiction of this Court t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Mandujano - 425 U.S. 564 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564 (1976) United States v. Mandujano No. 74-754 Argued No;ember 5, 1975 Decided May 19, 1976 425 U.S. 564 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus As a result of certain information concerning respondent's participation in an attempted sale of heroin, he was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury investigating narcotics traffic in the area. The prosecutor warned him that he was not required to answer any questions that might incriminate him, that all other questions had to be answered truthfully or else he would be subject to a charge of perjury, and that, if he desired a lawyer he could have one, but that the lawyer could not be inside the grand jury room. Subsequently, respondent was charged with perjury for admittedly false statements made to the grand jury about his involvement in the attempted heroin sale. The District Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Wood - 299 U.S. 123 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123 (1936) United States v. Wood No. 34 Argued October 20, 1936 Decided December 7, 1936 299 U.S. 123 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. Bias of a prospective juror may be actual or implied -- i.e., bias in fact or bias conclusively presumed as a matter of law. P. 299 U. S. 133 . 2. The Act of August 22, 1935, concerning qualifications of jurors in the District of Columbia, leaves all prospective jurors subject to examination and rejection for actual bias. Id. 3. In dealing with an employee of the Government, summoned to jury service in a criminal case, the court should be solicitous to discover whether, in view of the nature or circumstances of his employment, or of the relation of his particular governmental activity to the matters involved in the prosecution, he has actual bias. P 299 U. S. 134 . Page 299 U. S. 12...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Vandalia R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n - 242 U.S. 255 (1916) U.S. Supreme Court Vandalia R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 242 U.S. 255 (1916) Vandalia Railroad Company v. Public Service Commission of Indiana No. 81 Submitted November 6, 1916 Decided December 11, 1916 242 U.S. 255 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF INDIANA Syllabus Prior to the Act of March 4, 1915, c. 169, 38 Stat. 1192, and after the Act of February 17, 1911, c. 103, 36 Stat. 913, the state police power extended to the regulation of the character of headlights used on Page 242 U. S. 256 locomotives employed in interstate commerce. Atlantic Coast Line v. Georgia, 234 U. S. 280 . A judgment which correctly refused injunctive relief against such state regulation may not be attacked on writ of error as a judgment infringing federal rights (Judicial Code, 237) upon the ground that the same field of regulation has since been occupied by tho federal government under an act of Congress enacted af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. - 388 U.S. 175 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 175 (1967) National Labor Relations Board v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. No. 216 Argued March 15, 1967 Decided June 12, 1967 388 U.S. 175 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Lawful economic strikes were called at two of respondent Allis Chalmers' plants in accordance with duly authorized union procedures by the locals of the union representing the employees. Some union members crossed picket lines and worked during the strikes. After the strikes were over, the locals brought proceedings against these members, imposed fines of $20 to $100, and sued in state courts to collect the fines. The collective bargaining agreement contained a union security clause which required each employee to become and remain "a member of the union to the extent of paying his monthly dues." Allis-Chalmers filed unfair labor practice ...
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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC861; 2007(1)ALLMR(SC)944; 2007(1)AWC689(SC); [2007(2)JCR148(SC)]; JT2007(2)SC292; 2007(1)KLT623(SC); (2007)3MLJ423(SC); 2007(1)SCALE197; (2007)2SCC1; 2007AIRSCW611; 2007(3)CivilLJ589; 2007(1)LawHerald(SC)480; 2007(2)KCCRSN44(SC)
Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J.1. In these matters we are confronted with a very important yet not very easy task of determining the nature and character of protection provided by Article 31-B of the Constitution of India, 1950 (for short, the 'Constitution') to the laws added to the Ninth Schedule by amendments made after 24th April, 1973. The relevance of this date is for the reason that on this date judgment in His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati, Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Anr. : AIR1973SC1461 was pronounced propounding the doctrine of Basic Structure of the Constitution to test the validity of constitutional amendments.Re : Order of Reference2. The order of reference made more than seven years ago by a Constitution Bench of Five Judges is reported in I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Tamil Nadu : AIR1999SC3179 (14.9.1999) . The Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 (the Janmam Act), insofar as it vested forest lands in the Janmam estates in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC71; 2006(4)AWC4054(SC); [2007(1)JCR147(SC)]; JT2006(9)SC191; 2006(6)KarLJ529; 2006(10)SCALE301; (2006)8SCC212
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The width and amplitude of the right to equal opportunity in public employment, in the context of reservation, broadly falls for consideration in these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution.FACTS IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 61 OF 2002:2. The facts in the above writ petition, which is the lead petition, are as follows. Petitioners have invoked Article 32 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment] Act, 2001 inserting Article 16 of the Constitution retrospectively from 17.6.1995 providing reservation in promotion with consequential seniority as being unconstitutional and violative of the basic structure. According to the petitioners, the impugned amendment reverses the decisions of this Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Virpal Singh Chauhan and Ors., Ajit Singh Januja and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. (Ajit Singh-I), Ajit Singh and Ors. (II) v. State of Punjab and Ors. , A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.21762 OF2017ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) APPELLANT(S) VERSUS AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESPONDENT(S) WITH C.A. No.8193/2012; C.A. No.5057/2012; C.A. No.5058/2014; C.A. No.9974/2018; C.A. No.5056/2012; C.A. No.4196/2015; C.A. No.4374/2015; C.A. No.9380/2017; C.A. No.13071/2017; C.A. No.12058/2017; C.A. No.16375/2017; C.A. No.12869/2017; C.A. No.17527/2017; C.A. No.21845/2017; C.A. No.5719/2018; C.A. No.9886/2018; C.A. No.9200/2018; C.A. No.9860/2018; C.A. No.10114/2018; C.A. No.1643/2019; C.A. No.3596/2018; C.A. No.6762/2018; C.A. No.3972/2018; C.A. No.3343/2018; C.A. No.3359/2018; C.A. No.3971/2018; C.A. No.3347/2018; C.A. No.6489/2018; C.A. No.10598/2018; C.A. No.7643/2018; C.A. No.8321/2018; C.A. No.8554/2018; C.A. No.9172/2018; C.A. No.10406/2018; C.A. No.11259/2018; C.A. No.11884/2018; C.A. No.226/2019; C.A. No.170/2019; C.A. No.2047/2019; C.A. No.2335/2019; C.A....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRL.) No.48 OF2014Union of India Petitioner VERSUS V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors. Respondents With Writ Petition (Crl.) No.185/2014 Writ Petition (Crl.) No.150/2014 Writ Petition (Crl.) No.66/2014 Criminal Appeal No.1215/2011 JUDGMENT FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.The Petitioner has challenged the letter dated 19.02.2014 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu to the Secretary, Government of India wherein the State of Tamil Nadu proposed to remit the sentence of life imprisonment and to release the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 in the Writ Petition who were convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. As far as respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, originally they were imposed with the sentence of death. In the judgment reported as V. Sriharan alias Murugan v. Union of India & Ors.-. (2014) 4 SCC242 the sentence of death was commuted by this Court. Immediately thereafter, the impugn...
Tag this Judgment!