State V Huckins - Judgment Search Results

Goldsby Vs. United States

Court: US Supreme Court

the authorities are free from doubt. State v. Gillick, 10 Ia. 98; State v. Ruthven, 58 Ia. 121; State v. Huckins, 23 Neb. 309; Gates v. People, 14 Ill. 433; Logg v. People, 92 Ill. 598; State v. Cook,

Sisson Vs. Ruby

Court: US Supreme Court

772 F.2d 1007, 1015 (CA1 1985); Guidry v. Durkin, 834 F.2d 1465, 1471 (CA9 1987); Lewis Charters, Inc. v. Huckins Yacht Corp., 871 F.2d 1046, 1051 (CA11 1989). The Fourth Circuit appears to follow Kelly as well, although … Ruby No. 88-2041 Argued April 23, 1990 Decided June 25, 1990 497 U.S. 358 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus A fire erupted in the washer/dryer area of petitioner Sisson's

Hunnicutt Vs. Peyton

Court: US Supreme Court

102 U.S. 333 (1880) Hunnicutt v. Peyton 102 U.S. 333 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus 1. Exceptions reserved at the trial of the cause may, within … by J. C. Pool, plaintiff, and C. Jones, defendant, conflicts, and also the land claimed by Rhoda B. Huckins et als., plaintiffs, conflict, if any, with the land claimed by and in possession of J. C. Pool,

Gasoline Products Co., Inc. Vs. ChamplIn Refining Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

Co. v. Harris, 239 F. 234, 240; Simmons v. Fish, supra, 210 Mass. 568, 97 N.E. 102; McBride v. Huckins, 76 N.H. 206, 213, 81 A. 528; General Motors Co. v. Shepard Co., 47 R.I. 153, 156, 130 … preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law." It is argued that as, by the rules of

Netrambaka Krishnaiah Vs. Nellore Audinarayana

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2006(1)ALT76

permitted the petitioner-plaintiff to impound the document. Further, the Court below failed to consider the Judgment reported in State v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru 2003 (1) DT (SC) 490 in proper perspective. Even otherwise, the Court below

State of Uttaranchal and ors. Vs. Sidharth Srivastava and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2003SC4062; JT2003(5)SC393; 2003(5)SCALE73; (2003)9SCC336; 2003(1)SLJ122(SC); (2003)3UPLBEC2002

in SLP (C) No. 10363/2003 (CC 1629/2003).2. Leave granted in all the SLPs.3. These appeals are by the State of Uttaranchal assailing the common judgment and order dated 6th November, 2001 passed by the Division Bench of … Shivaraj V. Patil J.1. Delay condoned in SLP (C) No. 10363/2003 (CC 1629/2003).2. Leave granted in all the SLPs.3. These

A. Manavalagan Vs. A. Krishnamurthy and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: I(2005)ACC304; 2005ACJ992; ILR2004KAR3268; 2004(5)KarLJ321

has been clearly and succinctly stated by a division bench of the Lahore High Court in SECRETARY OF STATE v. GOKAL CHAND (AIR 1925 Lah 636). In that case, Sri SHADILAL CJ observed thus:'The law contemplates two sorts

Nylapally Narayana Vs. Brahmanapally Sarojini and ors.

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Reported in: 2008ACJ1384; 2006(6)ALD85; 2006(5)ALT651

has been clearly and succinctly stated by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Secretary of State v. GokalChand ILR 6 Lah 451 : AIR 1925 Lah 636. In that case, Sir Shadi Lal, C.J. observed

M. Narayanan Nambiyar Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: [1979]44STC191(Ker)

as best as possible. The counsel for theassessee relied on the decision of the Mysore High Court in State v. RaghuramaShetty [1975] 35 S.T.C. 360. The question there directly arose under Section6(i) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act

State Vs. Shriniwas B. Soni

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1967Bom200; (1963)65BOMLR839; 1967CriLJ732; ILR1963Bom798

my attention to a Judgment of the learned Chief Justice in Criminal Reference No. 77 of 1962 (Bom), State v. Keshawalal Virchand Shah, decided on 10-12-1962 and submitted that the contention raised by Mr. Lalit in the present