Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-18-2007
Gonzales v. Carhart - 05-380 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 GONZALES V. CARHART SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL v . CARHART etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit No. 05380.Argued November 8, 2006Decided April 18, 2007 Following this Courts Stenberg v. Carhart , 530 U. S. 914 , decision that Nebraskas partial birth abortion statute violated the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey , 505 U. S. 833 , and Roe v. Wade , 410 U. S. 113 , Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Act) to proscribe a particular method of ending fetal life in the later stages of pregnancy. The Act does not regulate the most common abortion procedures used in the first trimester of pregnancy, when the vast majority of abortions take place. In the usual second-trimester procedure, dilation and evacuation (D&E;), the doctor dilates the cervix and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-09-2007
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. - 05-608 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 MEDIMMUNE, INC. V. GENENTECH, INC. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MEDIMMUNE, INC. v . GENENTECH, INC., etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 05608.Argued October 4, 2006Decided January 9, 2007 After the parties entered into a patent license agreement covering, inter alia , respondents then-pending patent application, the application matured into the Cabilly II patent. Respondent Genentech, Inc., sent petitioner a letter stating that Synagis, a drug petitioner manufactured, was covered by the Cabilly II patent and that petitioner owed royalties under the agreement. Although petitioner believed no royalties were due because the patent was invalid and unenforceable and because Synagis did not infringe the patents claims, petitioner considered the letter a clear threat to enforce the patent, terminate the license agreement, and bring a patent infringe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-30-2007
Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T; Corp. - 05-1056 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 MICROSOFT CORP. V. AT&T; CORP. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MICROSOFT CORP. v . AT&T; CORP. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 051056.Argued February 21, 2007Decided April 30, 2007 It is the general rule under United States patent law that no infringement occurs when a patented product is made and sold in another country. There is an exception. Section 271(f) of the Patent Act, adopted in 1984, provides that infringement does occur when one suppl[ies] from the United States, for combination abroad, a patented inventions components. 35 U. S.C. 271(f)(1). This case concerns the applicability of 271(f) to computer software first sent from the United States to a foreign manufacturer on a master disk, or by electronic transmission, then copied by the foreign recipient for installation on computers made and sold abroad. AT&T; holds a patent on a computer us...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-27-2007
Reported in : AIR2007SC3180; 2007(4)AWC3851(SC); 2008(1)BomCR454; 2007(10)SCALE391; (2007)7SCC555; 2007AIRSCW5782
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11446 of 2005.2. Civil Appeal No. 3703 of 2003 is before us on the basis of an order of reference dated 14.10.2004 reported as Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : (2004)8SCC505 . Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11446 of 2005 is before us by virtue of an order dated 11.7.2005 tagging the same along with the Civil No. No. 3703 of 2003. The question in Civil Appeal No. 3703 of 2003 and one of the questions in the Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11446 of 2005 as posed by the order of reference is whether all the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the Central Act 68 of 1984, can be read into the provisions under Chapter VII of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, the MRTP Act) for an acquisition under that Act. According to the order of reference, the decision in State of Maharashtra and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-19-2007
Reported in : [2008]143CompCas325(SC); (2008)5CompLJ369(SC); (2007)213CTR(SC)301; [2008]297ITR176(SC); 2007(13)SCALE204; [2007]80SCL283(SC); 2007AIRSCW7443
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. A short question which arises for determination in this batch of civil appeals is:Whether Accounting Standard 22 (AS 22) entitled 'accounting for taxes on income' insofar as it relates to deferred taxation is inconsistent with and ultra vires the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Companies Act), the Income-tax Act, 1961 (I.T. Act) and the Constitution of India?2. M/s. J.K. Industries Ltd. is a public limited company. It was incorporated in 1951. It carries on the business of manufacture and sale of automotive tyres, tubes, sugar and agrigenetics. It has a registered office at Calcutta. It seeks to challenge AS 22 issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (for short, 'Institute') which has been made mandatory for all companies listed in Stock Exchanges in India in preparation of their accounts for the financial year 2001-02 onwards.3. On 7.12.06 the Central Government prescribed AS 22 under Section 211(3C) of the Companies Act by the Companies (AS...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-28-2007
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 - 05-908 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS v . SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 05908.Argued December 4, 2006Decided June 28, 2007 Respondent school districts voluntarily adopted student assignment plans that rely on race to determine which schools certain children may attend. The Seattle district, which has never operated legally segregated schools or been subject to court-ordered desegregation, classified children as white or nonwhite, and used the racial classifications as a tiebreaker to allocate slots in particular high schools. The Jefferson County, Ky., district was subject to a desegregation decree until 2000, when the District Court dissolved the decree after finding that the district...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-25-2007
Federal Election Commn v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. - 06-969 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TOLIFE, INC. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION v . WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC. appeal from the united states district court for the district of columbia No. 06969.Argued April 25, 2007Decided June 25, 2007 Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), makes it a federal crime for a corporation to use its general treasury funds to pay for any electioneering communication, 2 U. S.C. 441b(b)(2), which BCRA defines as any broadcast that refers to a candidate for federal office and is aired within 30 days of a federal primary election or 60 days of a federal general election in the jurisdiction where that candidate is running, 434(f)(3)(A). In McConnell v. Federal Election Commn, 540 U. S. 93 , this Court upheld 203 against a First Amendment facial challenge even though the section en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-02-2007
Massachusetts v. EPA - 05-1120 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 MASSACHUSETTS V. EPA SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MASSACHUSETTS etal. v . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 051120.Argued November 29, 2006Decided April 2, 2007 Based on respected scientific opinion that a well-documented rise in global temperatures and attendant climatological and environmental changes have resulted from a significant increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, a group of private organizations petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin regulating the emissions of four such gases, including carbon dioxide, under 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, which requires that the EPA shall by regulation prescribe standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class of new motor vehicles which in [the EPA Administrators] judgment cause[s], or contri...
Tag this Judgment!