Court : US Supreme Court
..... united states v. california canneries, 279 u. s. 553 , 279 u. s. 559 (1929); sutphen estates v. united states, 342 u. s. 19 , 342 u. s. 20 (1951); cascade natural gas corp. v. el paso natural gas co., 386 u. s. 129 , 386 u. s. 132 (1967). earlier this term, in tidewater oil co. v. united states, ..... , the contention that appellants were prepared to urge -- namely, that the grant of an exemption would nullify the specific congressional intent to extend the protections of the act to the class represented by appellants -- was never laid before the court. in upholding the denial of leave to intervene, the court reasons that appellants' motion, ..... 2) the appellants had initiated other litigation in the united states district court for the southern district of new york to compel compliance with 4 and 5 of the act; and (3) the appellants possessed "substantial documentary evidence," jurisdictional statement 7, to offer in opposition to the entry of the declaratory judgment. faced with the initial .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... 59, contained in west's ann. elec.code (1961), preceding 1-11499. [ footnote 6 ] see in re mcgee, 36 cal.2d 592, 226 p.2d 1 (1951). [ footnote 7 ] moreover, we note that the independent candidate who cannot qualify for the ballot may nevertheless resort to the write-in alternative provided by california law, see ..... before the primary could either be definitely disqualified from a partisan vote in the primary election or have the privilege of canceling their petition signatures by the act of casting a ballot in the primary election. and if these alternatives are unacceptable, there would remain the question whether it is essential to demonstrate community ..... at a reasonable time before election day to permit nomination papers to be verified. neither must california abandon its policy of confining each voter to a single nominating act -- either voting in the partisan primary or a signature on an independent petition. but the question remains whether signature gathering must page 415 u. s. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... trial to testify concerning the purpose of the official action, although even then such testimony frequently will be barred by privilege. see tenney v. brandhove, 341 u. s. 367 (1951); united states v. nixon, 418 u. s. 683 , 418 u. s. 705 (1974); 8 j. wigmore, evidence 2371 (mcnaughton rev. ed.1961). [ footnote ..... would be relevant to respondents' claims. [ footnote 20 ] respondents complain that the district court unduly limited their efforts to prove that the village board acted for discriminatory purposes, since it forbade questioning board members about their motivation at the time they cast their votes. we perceive no abuse of discretion in the ..... all the petitioners collectively as "the village." [ footnote 2 ] section 236 provides for "interest reduction payments" to owners of rental housing projects which meet the act's requirements, if the savings are passed on to the tenants in accordance with a rather complex formula. qualifying owners effectively pay 1% interest on money borrowed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... 26, 1978 * 438 u.s. 59 appeal from the united states district court for the western district of north carolina syllabus the price-anderson act (act), having the dual purpose of protecting the public and encouraging the development of the nuclear energy industry, imposes a $560 million limitation on liability ..... want of jurisdiction. cf. montana-dakota utilities co. v. northwestern public service co., 341 u. s. 246 , 341 u. s. 249 -250 (1951). giving the conclusory allegations of appellees' complaint the most liberal possible reading, they purport to establish only two grounds for the declaratory relief requested. first, they ..... simply a prudential limitation. [ footnote 26 ] mr. justice rehnquist undertakes to sever the action of the nrc in executing indemnity agreements under the act from the act's alleged constitutional infirmities -- particularly the liability limitation provisions. careful examination of the statutory mechanism indicates that such a separation simply cannot be sustained. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... 452 u. s. 172 , n. 12, 176, and n. 16. but it cannot be doubted that chief justice marshall stated the correct rule that "[w]here the mind labours to discover the design of the legislature, it seizes every thing from which aid can be derived. . . ." united states v. fisher, 2 cranch 358, 6 u. s ..... with the prior ambiguous legislative history. see galvan v. press, 347 u. s. 522 , 347 u. s. 526 -527 (1954) (court relied on a 1951 memorandum by senator mccarran in interpreting the meaning of a 1950 statute he sponsored). the court suggests senator bennett's 1965 comments should be discounted because senator clark criticized ..... carefully considered and ultimately rejected the "equal pay for comparable worth" standard advanced by respondents and several amici. as the legislative history of the equal pay act amply demonstrates, congress realized that the adoption of the comparable worth doctrine would ignore the economic realities of supply and demand and would involve both governmental agencies .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... in the conspiracy or simply "tagging along" with larger companies. see, e.g., markham, the nature and significance of price leadership, 41 amer.econ.rev. 891 (1951); posner, oligopoly and the antitrust laws: a suggested approach, 21 stan.l.rev. 1562, 1582 (1969); washburn, price leadership, 64 va.l.rev. 691, ..... agreement, "this court has never held that proof of parallel business behavior [by itself] conclusively establishes agreement or, phrased differently, that such behavior itself constitutes a sherman act offense." theatre enterprises, inc. v. paramount film distributing corp., 346 u. s. 537 , 346 u. s. 541 (1954). [ footnote 10 ] in northwest ..... ] it does not necessarily follow, however, that congress intended to give courts as wide discretion in formulating remedies to enforce the provisions of the sherman act or the kind of relief sought through contribution. the intent to allow courts to develop governing principles of law, so unmistakably clear with regard to substantive .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... , 296 u. s. 276 -277 (1935). [ footnote 2/7 ] the full faith and credit clause implements this design by directing that a state, when acting as the forum for litigation having multistate aspects or implications, respect the legitimate interests of other states and avoid infringement upon their sovereignty. the clause does not, however, ..... . v. industrial accident comm'n, 306 u. s. 493 (1939) (holding full faith and credit clause not violated where california applied own workmen's compensation act in case of injury suffered by massachusetts employee temporarily in california in course of employment). thus, nevada v. hall, supra, and watson v. employers liability assurance ..... the state, whose law was applied, with the parties and occurrence. in alaska packers, the court upheld california's application of its workmen's compensation act, where the most significant contact of the worker with california was his execution of an employment contract in california. the worker, a nonresident alien from .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... thus, something more than evidence of complaints is needed. there must be evidence that tends to exclude the possibility that the manufacturer and nonterminated distributors were acting independently. as judge aldisert has written, the antitrust plaintiff should present direct or circumstantial evidence that reasonably tends to prove that the manufacturer and others ..... is needed. the correct standard is that there must be evidence that tends to exclude the possibility that the manufacturer and nonterminated distributors were acting independently. that is, there must be direct or circumstantial evidence that reasonably tends to prove that the manufacturer and others had a conscious ..... case. a basic distinction in any distributor termination case is that between concerted action of the manufacturer and other distributors, which is proscribed by the sherman act, and independent action of the manufacturer, which is not proscribed. united states v. colgate & co., 250 u. s. 300 . a second .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... " need not itself be incriminating if it would lead to the discovery of incriminating evidence. see hoffman v. united states, 341 u. s. 479 , 341 u. s. 486 (1951). see also murphy v. waterfront comm'n of new york harbor, 378 u. s. 52 , 378 u. s. 79 (1964); 8 j. wigmore, evidence 2260 (mcnaughton rev ..... be compelled, and we may assume that its execution would have an incriminating effect. [ footnote 5 ] the question on which this case turns is whether the act of executing the form is a "testimonial communication." the parties disagree about both the meaning of "testimonial" and whether the consent directive fits the proposed definitions. a ..... to which the banks believe he has the right of withdrawal has independent testimonial significance that will incriminate him, and that the fifth amendment prohibits governmental compulsion of that act. the self-incrimination clause of the fifth amendment reads: "no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." this .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... date of the exercise of his option.''') (quoting 51 am. jur. 2d, limitation of actions 133 (1970)); see also 4 a. corbin, contracts 951 (1951) ("[t]he creditor is not required to join subsequent instalments in his action for the first instalment, if the acceleration clause is regarded as giving him an option ..... ). subsection (a), headed "[p]ersons entitled to maintain actions," answers only a "standing" question-who may sue for a violation of the obligations established by the act's substantive provisions. subsection (a)(l) extends judicial remedies for violation of the mpp aa to a broad range of plaintiffs-any "plan fiduciary, employer, plan participant ..... trowel trades international pension fund, by ira r. mitzner and woody n. peterson. 195 justice ginsburg delivered the opinion of the court. the multiemployer pension plan amendments act of 1980 (mppaa), 94 stat. 1208, 29 u. s. c. 1381-1461, requires employers who withdraw from underfunded multiemployer pension plans to pay a "withdrawal .....
Tag this Judgment!