Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-04-2009
Wyeth v. Levine - 06-1249 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 WYETH V. LEVINE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WYETH v . LEVINE certiorari to the supreme court of vermont No. 061249.Argued November 3, 2008Decided March 4, 2009 Petitioner Wyeth manufactures the antinausea drug Phenergan. After a clinician injected respondent Levine with Phenergan by the IV-push method, whereby a drug is injected directly into a patients vein, the drug entered Levines artery, she developed gangrene, and doctors amputated her forearm. Levine brought a state-law damages action, alleging, inter alia, that Wyeth had failed to provide an adequate warning about the significant risks of administering Phenergan by the IV-push method. The Vermont jury determined that Levines injury would not have occurred if Phenergans label included an adequate warning, and it awarded damages for her pain and suffering, substantial medical expenses, and loss of her livelihood as a professional musician. Declining t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-09-2009
LORD PHILLIPS, PRESIDENT This is a judgment with which all members of the court agree. Introduction Each of the appellants has been convicted on indictment of a serious criminal offence. Each has had an appeal against conviction dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Each appeals on the ground that he did not receive a fair trial, contrary to article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("article 6") ("The Convention"). The appeal of each is based on the fact that there was placed before the jury the statement of a witness who was not called to give evidence. In each case the witness was the victim of the alleged offence. Mr Horncastle and Mr Blackmore were convicted of causing grievous bodily harm, with intent, to Mr Peter Rice. Mr Rice made a witness statement to the police about what had happened to him. He died before the trial of causes not attributable to the injuries that had been inflicted upon him. His statement was read at the trial. Although there was other evidence that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-09-2009
Reported in : JT2009(12)SC1; 2009(12)SCALE349; (2009)10SCC689:2009AIRSCW6465
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.Background of Appeals1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Appeal Nos. 2650-2652 of 1998, 3162 of 1998, 3176 of 1998, 3415 of 1998, 3561 of 1998, 3597 of 1998, 3923 of 1998, 3939 of 1998, 3645 of 1998, 3691 of 1998, 5346 of 1998, 2116-2118 of 1999, 2139 of 1999, 2121 of 1999, 2113 of 1999, 4995-4996 of 1998 and SLP(C) No. ..(CC) 1540 of 1999. All these appeals and the Special Leave Petition challenge a common judgment passed by Allahabad High Court, disposing of several Writ Petitions. The High Court has granted certificate granting leave to file appeal. These Writ Petitions were filed covering various subjects. Basically, in some of the Writ Petitions, constitutionality of provisions of Sections 17(1), 17(1)(A), 17(3)(A), 17(4) and proviso to Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act' for short) alongwith Section 2 of the U.P. Act No. VIII of 1994 (hereinafter called `the Validating Act' for short) was challenged, so also constit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-20-2009
Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR711; 2009(4)BomCR348; JT2009(1)SC470; 2009(1)SCALE758; (2009)3SCC571; 2009(1)LC411(SC)
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. The above noted appeals are directed against order dated 25.4.2000 passed by Goa Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 330 of 1991 Shri Minguel Martins v. Sociedadee Fomento Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., Writ Petition No. 36 of 1992 Goa Foundation and Anr. v. Fomento Hotels and Resorts Limited and Ors. and Writ Petition No. 141 of 1992 Shri Gustavo Renato de Cruz Pinto v. State of Goa and Ors. whereby directions have been given for demolition of construction made in survey No. 803 (new No. 246/2) within the area of Gram Panchayat, Taleigao, for resumption of the land acquired on behalf of appellant No. 1, Fomento Resorts and Hotels Limited, earlier known as M/s. Gomantak Land Development Pvt. Ltd. and keeping public access to the Vainguinim beach from point `A' to point `B' shown in plan Exhibit-A open without any obstruction of any kind.2. For deciding the questions arising in the appeals, it will be useful to notice the relevant facts:(i) Dr. Alva...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-08-2009
Reported in : JT2009(15)SC315; 2009(14)SCALE447; 2010(1)LC149(SC)
H.L. Dattu, J.1. Mr. Hazi Yaqoob-respondent is the elected candidate in the elections held from 381 Meerut Assembly Constituency to the U.P. Legislative Assembly. His elections had been called in question before the Allahabad High Court by the defeated candidate by filing Election Petition under the provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951. Petition is rejected by the Allahabad High Court by its order dated 12.5.2008.2. We may now briefly state the material facts : The Delimitation Commission of India under Section 10(1) of the Delimitation Act, 1972, had issued an order in respect of the delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies of the State of Uttar Pradesh and published the same by issuing a notification dated 8th December, 1973. Table B in the notification provides the territorial constituencies into which the State of Uttar Pradesh was divided for the purpose of election to the Legislative Assembly and the extent of each such constituency. Table B also show...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-29-2009
Ricci v. DeStefano - 07-1428 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 RICCI V. DESTEFANO SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RICCI etal. v . DeSTEFANO etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 071428.Argued April 22, 2009Decided June 29, 2009 New Haven, Conn. (City), uses objective examinations to identify those firefighters best qualified for promotion. When the results of such an exam to fill vacant lieutenant and captain positions showed that white candidates had outperformed minority candidates, a rancorous public debate ensued. Confronted with arguments both for and against certifying the test resultsand threats of a lawsuit either waythe City threw out the results based on the statistical racial disparity. Petitioners, white and Hispanic firefighters who passed the exams but were denied a chance at promotions by the Citys refusal to certify the test results, sued the City and respondent officials, alleging that discarding the test resul...
Tag this Judgment!