Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-25-1982
Blum v. Yaretsky - 457 U.S. 991 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982) Blum v. Yaretsky No. 80-1952 Argued March 24, 1982 Decided June 25, 1982 457 U.S. 991 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus As a participating State in the Medicaid program established by the Social Security Act, New York provides Medicaid assistance to eligible persons who receive care in private nursing homes, which are designated as either "skilled nursing facilities" (SNF's) or "health related facilities" (HRF's), the latter providing less extensive, and generally less expensive, medical care than the former. The nursing homes are directly reimbursed by the State for the reasonable cost of health care services. To obtain Medicaid assistance, an individual must satisfy eligibility standards in terms of income or resources and must seek medically necessary services. As to the latter requirement, federal regulations require each nursing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-18-1982
Arizona v. Maricopa County Med. Soc'y - 457 U.S. 332 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Arizona v. Maricopa County Med. Soc'y, 457 U.S. 332 (1982) Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society No. 80-419 Argued November 4, 1981 Decided June 18, 1982 457 U.S. 332 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent foundations for medical care were organized by respondent Maricopa County Medical Society and another medical society to promote fee-for-service medicine and to provide the community with a competitive alternative to existing health insurance plans. The foundations, by agreement of their member doctors, established the maximum fees the doctors may claim in full payment for health services provided to policyholders of specified insurance plans. Petitioner State of Arizona filed a complaint against respondents in Federal District Court, alleging that they were engaged in an illegal price-fixing conspiracy in violation of 1 of the Sherman A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-29-1982
Asarco Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n - 458 U.S. 307 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Asarco Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 458 U.S. 307 (1982) Asarco Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Commission No. 80-2015 Argued April 19, 1982 Decided June 29, 1982 458 U.S. 307 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO Syllabus Held: The State of Idaho may not constitutionally include within the taxable income of appellant nondomiciliary parent corporation doing some business (primarily silver mining) in the State a portion of intangible income (dividends, interest payments, and capital gains from the sale of stock) that appellant received from subsidiary corporations having no other connection with the State. Pp. 458 U. S. 315 -330. (a) As a general principle, a State may not tax value earned outside its borders. "[T]he linchpin of apportionability in the field of state income taxation is the unitary business principle." Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes of Vermont, 445 U. S. 425 , 445 U. S....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-01-1982
Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories - 456 U.S. 844 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories, 456 U.S. 844 (1982) Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. No. 80-2182 Argued February 22, 1982 Decided June 1, 1982 * 456 U.S. 844 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent manufactured and marketed the patented prescription drug cyclandelate to wholesalers, retail pharmacists, and hospitals in colored capsules under the registered trademark CYCLOSPASMOL. After respondent's patent expired, several generic drug manufacturers, including petitioner manufacturers, began marketing the drug, intentionally copying the appearance of the CYCLOSPASMOL capsules. Respondent then brought an action against petitioner manufacturers and wholesalers in Federal District Court under, inter alia, 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946, alleging that some pharmacists had dispensed generic drugs mislabeled as CYC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-18-1982
California State Lands Comm'n v. United States - 457 U.S. 273 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court California State Lands Comm'n v. United States, 457 U.S. 273 (1982) California ex rel. State Lands Commission v. United States No. 89, Orig. Argued March 29, 1982 Decided June 18, 1982 457 U.S. 273 ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT Syllabus Held: The United States, not California, has title to oceanfront land created through accretion, resulting from construction of a jetty, to land owned by the United States on the coast of California. Pp. 457 U. S. 278 -288. (a) A dispute over accretions to oceanfront land where title rests with or was derived from the Federal Government is to be determined by federal law. Hughes v. Washington, 389 U. S. 290 ; Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U. S. 653 . Under federal law, accretion, whatever its cause, belongs to the upland owner. Pp. 457 U. S. 278 -283. (b) This is not a case where, as a matter of choice of law, state law should be borrowed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-28-1982
Union Labor Life Ins. Co. v. Pireno - 458 U.S. 119 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Union Labor Life Ins. Co. v. Pireno, 458 U.S. 119 (1982) Union Labor Life Ins. Co. v. Pireno No. 81-389 Argued April 27, 1982 Decided June 28, 1982 * 458 U.S. 119 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus As required by New York law, petitioner Union Labor Life Insurance Co. (ULL) issues health insurance policies covering certain policyholder claims for chiropractic treatments. Some ULL policies limit the company's liability to "reasonable" charges for "necessary" medical care and services. In order to determine whether particular chiropractors' treatments and fees were necessary and reasonable, ULL arranged with petitioner New York State Chiropractic Association (NYSCA), a professional association of chiropractors, to use the advice of its Peer Review Committee, which was established primarily to aid insurers in evaluating claims for chiropractic treatments,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-27-1982
Pullman-Standard v. Swint - 456 U.S. 273 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (1982) Pullman-Standard v. Swint No. 80-1190 Argued January 19, 1982 Decided April 27, 1982 * 456 U.S. 273 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent black employees brought suit in Federal District Court against petitioners, their employer and certain unions, alleging that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was violated by a seniority system maintained by petitioners. The District Court found that the differences in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment resulting from the seniority system "are not the result of an intention to discriminate' because of race or color" and held, therefore, that the system satisfied the requirements of 703(h) of the Act. That section provides that it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different compensation standards or different terms, c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-29-1982
General Bldg. Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania - 458 U.S. 375 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court General Bldg. Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375 (1982) General Building Contractors Association, Inc. v. Pennsylvania No. 81-280 Argued March 3, 1982 Decided June 29, 1982 * 458 U.S. 375 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondents -- the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and several black individuals representing a class of racial minorities who are skilled or seek work as operating engineers in the construction industry in Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware -- brought an action in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. 1981, seeking to redress alleged racial discrimination in the operation of an exclusive hiring hall established in collective bargaining contracts between the local union representing operating engineers and petitioner trade associations and construction industry employers. Respondents also alleged dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-18-1982
Reported in : AIR1982SC1473; 1982(0)BLJR401; (1982)IILLJ454SC; 1982(1)SCALE818; (1982)3SCC235; [1983]1SCR456; 1982(14)LC657(SC)
P.N. Bhagwatil, J.1. This is a writ petition brought by way of public interest litigation in order to ensure observance of the provisions of various labour laws in relation to workmen employed in the construction work of various projects connected with the Asian Games. The matter was brought to the attention of the Court by the 1st petitioner which is an organisation formed for the purpose of protecting democratic rights by means of a letter addressed to one of us (Bhagwati, J). The letter was based on a report made by a team of three social scientists who were commissioned by the 1st petitioner for the purpose of investigating and inquiring into the conditions under which the workmen engaged in the various Asiad Projects were working. Since the letter addressed by the 1st petitioner was based on the report made by three social scientists after personal investigation and study, it was treated as a writ petition on the judicial side and notice was issued upon it inter alia to the Union ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-25-1982
Reported in : AIR1982SC1413; 1983CriLJ647; 1982(1)SCALE676; (1982)3SCC140; [1983]1SCR393; 1982(2)SLJ582(SC); 1982(14)LC695(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Validity and legality of an order made against each petitioner convening General Court Martial to try each petitioner in respect of the charges framed against each of them is questioned on diverse grounds but principally the composition in each of these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. In Writ Petition No. 4903/81 the petitioner has also challenged the constitutional validity of Rules 22, 23, 25 and 40 of the Army Rules, 1954 ('rules' for short) as being violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. As certain contentions were common to all the three petitions they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts alleged on which legal formulations were founded may be briefly set out in respect of each petitioner.Re Writ Petition No. 4903/81 :Petitioner Lt. Col. Prithipal Singh Bedi was granted permanent regular commission in the Regiment of Artillery in 1958 and...
Tag this Judgment!