Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-03-1981
Diamond v. Diehr - 450 U.S. 175 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) Diamond v. Diehr No. 79-1112 Argued October 14, 1980 Decided March 3, 1981 450 U.S. 175 CERTIORARI TO TIE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS Syllabus Respondents filed a patent application claiming invention for a process for molding raw, uncured synthetic rubber into cured precision products. While it was possible, by using well-known time, temperature, and cure relationships, to calculate by means of an established mathematical equation when to open the molding press and remove the cured product, according to respondents, the industry had not been able to measure precisely the temperature inside the press, thus making it difficult to make the necessary computations to determine the proper cure time. Respondents characterized their contribution to the art to reside in the process of constantly measuring the temperature inside the mold and feeding the temperature m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-04-1981
Schweiker v. Wilson - 450 U.S. 221 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221 (1981) Schweiker v. Wilson No. 79-1380 Argued December 2, 1980 Decided March 4, 1981 450 U.S. 221 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which is part of the Social Security Act, provides a subsistence allowance to needy aged, blind, and disabled persons. Inmates of public institutions are generally excluded from this program, except that, under 1611(e)(1)(B) of the Act, a reduced amount of SSI benefits are provided to otherwise eligible persons in a hospital, extended care facility, nursing home, or intermediate care facility receiving Medicaid funds for their care. Appellees, aged 21 through 64 and residing in public mental institutions that do not receive Medicaid funds for their care, brought a class action in Federal District Court challenging their exclusion from the reduced...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-24-1981
Montana v. United States - 450 U.S. 544 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981) Montana v. United States No. 79-1128 Argued December 3, 1980 Decided March 24, 1981 450 U.S. 544 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus By a tribal regulation, the Crow Tribe of Montana sought to prohibit hunting and fishing within its reservation by anyone who is not a member of the Tribe. Relying on its purported ownership of the bed of the Big Horn River, on treaties which created its reservation, and on its inherent power as a sovereign, the Tribe claimed authority to prohibit hunting and fishing by nonmembers of the Tribe even on lands within the reservation owned in fee simple by non-Indians. Montana, however, continued to assert its authority to regulate hunting and fishing by non-Indians within the reservation. The First Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1851, in which the signatory tribes acknowledged various designated la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-20-1981
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman - 451 U.S. 1 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1 (1981) Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman No. 79-1404 Argued December 8, 1980 Decided April 20, 1981 * 451 U.S. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus The Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (Act) established a federal-state grant program whereby the Federal Government provides financial assistance to participating States to aid them in creating programs to care for and treat the developmentally disabled. The Act is voluntary, and the States are given the choice of complying with the conditions set forth in the Act or forgoing the benefits of federal funding. The "bill of rights" provision of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 6010(1) and(2), states that mentally retarded persons "have a right to appropriate treatment, services, and habilitation" in "the setting that is least ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-23-1981
H. L. v. Matheson - 450 U.S. 398 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 (1981) H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 No. 79-5903 Argued October 6, 1980 Decided March 23, 1981 450 U.S. 398 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH Syllabus A Utah statute requires a physician to "[n]otify, if possible," the parents or guardian of a minor upon whom an abortion is to be performed. Appellant, while an unmarried minor living with and dependent on her parents, became pregnant. A physician advised her that an abortion would be in her best medical interest but, because of the statute, refused to perform the abortion without first notifying her parents. Believing that she should proceed with the abortion without notifying her parents, appellant instituted a suit in state court seeking a declaration that the statute is unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement. She sought to represent a class consisting of unmarried minors "who are suffering unwanted pregnanci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jul-01-1981
CBS, Inc. v. FCC - 453 U.S. 367 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court CBS, Inc. v. FCC, 453 U.S. 367 (1981) CBS, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission No. 80-207 Argued March 3, 1981 Decided July 1, 1981 * 453 U.S. 367 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus Section 312 (a) (7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as added by Title I of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, authorizes the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to revoke any broadcasting station license "for willful or repeated failure to allow reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time for the use of a broadcasting station by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his candidacy." On October 11, 1979, the Carter-Mondale Presidential Committee(Committee) requested each of the three major television networks (petitioners) to provide time for a 30-minute program between 8 p. m. and 10:30 p.m. on a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-03-1981
Reported in : AIR1981SC2198; 1981CriLJ1835; 1981(3)SCALE1707; (1982)1SCC71; [1982]1SCR1077
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. By this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India the petitioners and through them the Shia community of Mohalla Doshipura, Varanasi are complaining against the various actions of the respondents (including respondents 5 and 6 as representing the Sunni community of Mohalla Doshipura) which constitute serious infraction and/or infringement of their fundamental rights guaranteed to them under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution in the matter of enjoying their religious faith and performance of religious rites, practices and observances on certain plots and properties situated in the said Mohalla of Doshipura, Police Station Jaitpura (formerly Adampur) in the city of Varanasi and in particular are seeking a declaration that the 9 plots of land bearing plot Nos. 245, 246, 247, 248/23/72, 602, 603, 602/1133, 246/1134 and 247/1130 in the said Mohalla and buildings and structures thereon belong to the Shia Waqf of Mohalla Doshipura and that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-07-1981
Reported in : AIR1981SC1047; (1981)22CTR(SC)157; [1981]129ITR295(SC); 1981(1)SCALE949; (1981)2SCC693; [1981]3SCR387; 1981(13)LC873(SC)
1. This appeal by certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution arises out of a writ petition filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Calcutta. The appellants are partners of a firm of Solicitors known as M/s. Orr Dignam & Co. having its office at Calcutta. The appellants acted as the Solicitors of a German Corporation known as Ferbwerke Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft Vormals Meister Lucius & Bruning (a Corporation organised under the law of Federal Republic of Germany) (hereinafter referred to as 'the German Corporation' ) in two suits filed on the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court-one Suit No. 511 of 1962 filed by the Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. against German Corporation and another Suit No. 1124 of 1962 filed by the German Corporation against the Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. on the alleged infringement of a patent. The appellants were instructed by a firm of Solicitors in London namely...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-30-1981
Reported in : AIR1982SC149; 1981Supp(1)SCC87; [1982]2SCR365
..... of sections 123 and 124 of the evidence act as also those of article 74(2) of the constitution have fully safeguarded high government and official secrets and disclosure is prohibited in public interest unless the court is fully satisfied that disclosure will not harm the public ..... , including its derivation that is the various steps leading up to and at tending its enactment, as shown by the legislative journals, in its effort to ascertain the intention of the legislature where it is in doubt. conversely, the legislative history cannot be considered where the ..... accepted the appointment on those terms. in 1942, while the claimant was on leave in australia, malaya was occupied by the enemy and the letters patent appointing the claimant, of which there was no copy and those relating to other judges, were lost or destroyed. on april ..... t no additional judge can be appointed without complying with the requirement of clause (1) of article 217.39. now. when the term of an additional judge expires he ceases to be a judge and therefore, if he is ..... the constitution will not include a 'chief justice' of a high court and by analogy, the word 'judges' in article 145(2) and (3) will not include the 'chief justice of india.'1129. in these circumstances the reasonable way ..... mr. sheth's case 0065/1977 : [1978]1scr423 , recalling the observation in chandramouleshwar prasad's case : [1970]2scr666 extracted hereinbefore, observed that consultation in order to fulfil its normative function must, be real .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-13-1981
Reported in : AIR1981SC818; (1982)1CompLJ309(SC); 1981(1)SCALE90; (1981)1SCC664; [1981]2SCR533
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1629, 1857 & 2087 of 1979. From the Judgment and Order dated 1-5-1979 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 408 of 1978. F. S. Nariman, S. D. Parekh, A. D. Mehta, Lalit Bhasin, Vinay Bhasin and Vineet Kumar for the Appellants in C.A. No. 1629 and for R. 1 in C.A. No. 2087/79. V. N. Tarkunde, S. Ganesh, K. Vasudev and T.V.S.N. Chari for the Appellants in CA 1857/79. Soli J. Sorabjee, Solicitor General and Girish Chandra for Appellants in CA 2087 and for Respondent (UOI) in CA 1629/79. Soli J. Sorabjee, Solicitor General, S. Ganesh Vasdev and T.V.S.N. Chari for Respondent No. 2 in CA 1629. T. V. S. N. Chari for Respondent No. 4 in CA 2087 Suresh Parik and S. Swarup for Respondent No. 3 in CA 2087. F. S. Nariman, B. P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi for Respondent-Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. in CA No. 1857 and 2087/79. C. M. Chopra for Intervenor. The Judgment of R. S. Sarkaria and D. A. Desai, JJ. was delivered by Sarkaria, J. O. Ch...
Tag this Judgment!