Lind V The - Judgment Search Results

Lind Vs. Minnesota

Court: US Supreme Court

LIND v. MINNESOTA - 379 U.S. 9 (1964) U.S. Supreme Court LIND v. MINNESOTA, 379 U.S. 9 (1964) 379 U.S. 9 LIND v. MINNESOTA ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES … LIND v. MINNESOTA - 379 U.S. 9 (1964) U.S. Supreme Court LIND v. MINNESOTA, 379 U.S. 9 (1964) 379 U.S.

In the Case of Taranenko Vs. Russia

Court: European Court of Human Rights

of pre-trial detention, see the cases of Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 26-31, 2 March 2006, and Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, §§ 47-52, 6 December 2007. THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE … set out in Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Dolgova v. Russia, cited above, §§ 38-50; Lind v. Russia, cited above, §§ 74-86; Kolunov v. Russia, no. 26436/05, §§ 48-58, 9 October 2012; Zentsov and Others

El Paso Natural Gas Co. Vs. Neztsosie

Court: US Supreme Court

Tabor Court Realty Corp., 943 F.2d 335 , 342-344 (CA3 1991) (rule of practice), cert. denied sub nom. Linde v. Carrier Coal Enterprises, Inc., 502 U. S. 1093 (1992). For a discussion of the issue among the

Miranda Vs. Arizona

Court: US Supreme Court

44 N.J. 151, 207 A.2d 542; People v. Gunner, 15 N.Y.2d 226, 205 N.E.2d 852; Commonwealth ex rel. Linde v. Maroney, 416 Pa. 331, 206 A.2d 288; Browne v. State, 24 Wis.2d 491, 131 N.W.2d 169. An

Neely Vs. MartIn K. Eby Construction Co., Inc.

Court: US Supreme Court

grant of the new trial and direct that judgment be entered on the verdict." 31 F.R.D. 645. See Lind v. Schenley Indus. Inc., 278 F.2d 79 (C.A.3d Cir.1960), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 835; Moist Cold Refrigerator Co. v.

Maryland Cas. Co. Vs. Pacific Coal and Oil Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

such conditions. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Randall, 125 Ohio St. 581, 183 N.E. 433; see also Lind v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Association, 128 Ohio St. 1, 190 N.E. 138; Page 312 U. S. 274 State

Commissioners of Johnson County Vs. January

Court: US Supreme Court

County v. Amy, 13 Wall. 298; Myers v. Muscatine, 1 Wall. 385; Knox v. Aspinwall, 21 How. 544; Lind v. The County, 16 Wall. 6; St. Joseph's Township v. Rogers, 16 Wall. 644; Pine Grove v. Talcot, 19 Wall.

The State Of Haryana Vs. Ashok Khemka

Court: Supreme Court of India

authority. Mere disagreement with the decision-making process would not suffice.26. Similarly, this Court in State of Jharkhand v. Linde India Ltd., (2022) 107 GSTR381whilst delineating the scope of interference of the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article

Nbcc (India) Ltd. versus the State of West Bengal & Ors

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: [2025]1S.C.R.610; (2025) 3 SCC 440; 2025INSC 54; MANU/SC/0061/2025

Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan [2016] 9 SCR 560 : (2016) 8 SCC 509; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Linde (India) Ltd. [2020] 5 SCR 838 : (2020) 16 SCC 335; Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. v. Eastern … [2025] 1 S.C.R. 610 : 2025 INSC 54 NBCC (India) Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3705 of 2024) 10 January 2025 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha*

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Balwant Regular Motor ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1969SC329; (1969)71BOMLR438; 1969MhLJ890(SC); [1969]1SCR808

of discretion in the Court of Chancery. The principle has been clearly stated by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lind say Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd, Abram Farewall, and John Kemp, (1874) 5 PC 221 as follows:'Now … T. A. Reference was, however, made by Mr. Phadke to two decisions of this Court in Bhagat Raja v. The Union of India, : [1967]3SCR302 and in Prag Das Umar Vaishva v. The Union of India, Civil App.