Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-24-1972
S & E Contractors, Inc. v. United States - 406 U.S. 1 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court S & E Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 406 U.S. 1 (1972) S & E Contractors, Inc. v. United States No. 70-88 Argued October 21, 1971 Reargued March 20, 1972 Decided April 24, 1972 406 U.S. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus In a contract disputes procedure, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) approved claims of its contractor for additional compensation. In response to an AEC certifying officer's request for advice as to one item, however, the General Accounting Office (GAO) ruled that the claims could not be certified for payment. When the AEC then refused to pay the compensation, the contractor brought suit in the Court of Claims alleging that the GAO had no authority to overturn the AEC approval. The Government, through the Department of Justice, defended on the ground that the AEC determination was not final, but was subject to judicial review under the standards spe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-30-1972
Deepsouth Packing Co., Inc. v. Laitram Corp. - 406 U.S. 518 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Deepsouth Packing Co., Inc. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518 (1972) Deepsouth Packing Co., Inc. v. Laitram Corp. No. 71-315 Argued April 11, 1972 Decided May 30, 1972 406 U.S. 518 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner is not foreclosed by 35 U.S.C. 271(a), which proscribes the unauthorized making of any patented invention within the United States, from making the parts of shrimp deveining machines (for which respondent was adjudged to have valid combination patents) to sell to foreign buyers for assembly by the buyers for use abroad. The word "makes" as used in 271(a) does not extend to the manufacture of the constituent parts of a combination machine, and the unassembled export of the elements of an invention does not infringe the patent. Radio Corp. of America v. Andrea, 79 F.2d 626. Pp. 51532. 443 F.2d 936, reversed and remanded. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-22-1972
Eisenstadt v. Baird - 405 U.S. 438 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) Eisenstadt v. Baird No. 70-17 Argued November 17-18, 1971 Decided March 22, 1972 405 U.S. 438 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Syllabus Appellee attacks his conviction of violating Massachusetts law for giving a woman a contraceptive foam at the close of his lecture to students on contraception. That law makes it a felony for anyone to give away a drug, medicine, instrument, or article for the prevention of conception except in the case of (1) a registered physician administering or prescribing it for a married person or (2) an active registered pharmacist furnishing it to a married person presenting a registered physician's prescription. The District Court dismissed appellee's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal, holding that the statute is a prohibition on contraception per se, and conflict...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Nov-20-1972
Gottschalk v. Benson - 409 U.S. 63 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972) Gottschalk v. Benson No. 71-485 Argued October 16, 1972 Decided November 20, 1972 409 U.S. 63 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPALS Syllabus Respondents' method for converting numerical information from binary-coded decimal numbers into pure binary numbers, for use in programming conventional general purpose digital computers, is merely a series of mathematical calculations or mental steps, and does not constitute a patentable "process" within the meaning of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 100(b). Pp. 409 U. S. 64 -73. ___ C.C.P.A. (Pat.) ___, 441 F.2d 682, reversed. DOUGLAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all members joined except STEWART, BLACKMUN, and POWELL, JJ., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Page 409 U. S. 64 MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. Respondents filed in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-29-1972
..... omnibus crime control act of 1970 was approved january 2, 1971. title iv thereof added the congressional assassination statute tha ..... the fourteenth amendment to the constitution," "and, in either case, whether congress should exercise its authority under section 5 of the fourteenth amendment to prohibit the use of the death penalty." there is the naive view that capital ..... brother stewart puts it, "wantonly and . . . freakishly" inflicted, i need not conclude that arbitrary infliction is patently obvious. i am not considering this punishment by the isolated light of one principle. the probability of arbitrariness is sufficiently ..... are. but an error in mistakenly sustaining the constitutionality of a particular enactment, while wrongfully depriving the individual of a right secured to him by the constitution, nonetheless does so by simply letting stand a duly enacted law of a democratically chosen ..... precedent invalidates a staggering number of state and federal laws. the capital punishment laws of no less than 39 states [ footnote 8/2 ] and the district of columbia are nullified. in addition, numerous provisions of the criminal ..... almost always become law-abiding citizens upon their release from prison; that the costs of executing a capital offender exceed the costs of imprisoning him for life; that, while in prison, a convict under sentence of death performs ..... 45, capital punishment 1930-1968, p. 7 (aug. 1969). [ footnote 4/150 ] ibid. [ footnote 4/151 ] ibid. [ footnote 4/152 ] alexander, the abolition of capital .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Nov-20-1972
United States v. Jim - 409 U.S. 80 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Jim, 409 U.S. 80 (1972) United States v. Jim No. 71-1509 Decided November 20, 1972 * 409 U.S. 80 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH Syllabus A statute enlarged the class of beneficiaries of certain royalties from oil and gas leases in the Aneth Extension of the Navajo Indian Reservation in Utah by providing that the funds be used to benefit all Navajo Indians residing in San Juan County, rather than only those residing in the Aneth Extension, as provided in an earlier statute. Held: As the earlier statute did not create constitutionally protected property rights in the residents of the Aneth Extension, the statutory change did not constitute a taking of property without just compensation. Reversed. PER CURIAM. The motion of the Navajo Tribe of Indians for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in No. 71-1509 is granted. These cases are here on appeal from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-14-1972
Reported in : AIR1972SC1586; (1972)2SCC11; [1972]3SCR815
D.G.Palekar, J.1. In these 12 petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by the hereditary Archakas and Mathadhipatis of some ancient Hindu Public temples in Tamil Nadu the validity of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act, 1970) is called in question, principally, on the ground that it violates their freedom of religion secured to them under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The validity of the Amendment Act had been also impugned on the ground that if interfered with certain other fundamental rights of the petitioners but that case was not pressed at the time of the hearing.2. The temples With which we are concerned are Saivite and Vaishnavite temples in Tamil Nadu. Writ Petitions 70, 83, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443 and 444/71 art filed by the Archakas and Writ Petitions 13 tad 14/1971 are filed by the Mathadhipatis to whose Math some temples are attached. As, Common questions ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-03-1972
Reported in : AIR1973SC1034; (1973)1SCC216; [1973]2SCR502; [1973]31STC178(SC)
K. S. Hegde, J.1. These are appeals by certificate. They raise common questions of law for decision, and they are directed against a common judgment of the Allahabad High Court.2. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass. The appellants are dealers in foodgrains including cereals and pulses especially split or processed foodgrains and dal. The dispute in this case centers round the question whether the Government is competent to levy sales-tax on the purchases made by the appellants of split processed foodgrains and dal under the provisions of the United Provinces Sales Tax Act, 1948 as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act (Amendment and Validation) Act. 1970 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act).3. Under the Sales Tax Act as it originally stood (which will hereinafter be referred to as the principal Act), the purchases of split or processed foodgrains and dal by dealers were sought, to be brought to tax Under Section 3-D of the principal Act read with the n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-03-1972
Reported in : AIR1972SC1256; 1972CriLJ885; (1972)1SCC580; [1972]3SCR379
ORDERNo. 97/C Dated 24.4.71Whereas I am satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri Ananta Mukhi @ Ananta Hari son of Gobardhan @ Gurai of Antpara, Chakbazir, P.S. Debra, Dt. Midnapore that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the Maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, I therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section 1 read with Sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 (President's Act No. 19 of 1970) make this order directing that the said Shri Ananta Mukhi @ Ananta Hari be detained.Given under my hand and Seal of office.Sd/- District MagistrateMidnaporeSoon after the detention order, the petitioner was found to be absconding. He was arrested on May 5, 1971 and was served with the order of detention along with the ground of detention and the vernacular translation thereof on the same day. On April 26, 1971 the District Magistrate of Midn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-23-1972
Reported in : AIR1972SC2066; (1972)2SCC668; [1973]1SCR675; 1973(5)LC119(SC)
J.M. Shelat, J.1. The District Magistrate, Howrah passed on June 12, 1971 the impugned order of detention under Sub-section (1) read with Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 directing the petitioner's detention thereunder. The order stated that the District Magistrate was satisfied that it was necessary to do so in order to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On June. 13, 1971, the petitioner was accordingly arrested and detained in Dum Dum Central Jail.2. The grounds of detention served on the petitioner at the time of his arrest read as follows :(1) On 17-8-70 at about 02.00 hours, you and your associates Bhaja alias Tarapada Ghosh, Bablu, Kartic and others attacked the members of R.G. Party who were on duty near Jatadhari Park by hurling bombs towards them. When chased by them, you and your associates again hurled bombs towards them and managed to escape and thereby di...
Tag this Judgment!