Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2197; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)321; 1999CriLJ3504; 1999(3)Crimes110(SC); (2000)4GLR847; JT1999(4)SC455; 1999(4)SCALE52; (1999)5SCC613; [1999]3SCR807; 1999(2)LC1191(SC)
ORDERG.B. Pattanaik, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The detenu, who has been detained by the detaining authority under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short 'PASA') approached the Gujarat High Court for quashing the order of detention dated 13,8.98 in Special Civil Application No. 6896 of 1998. The said application was dismissed by the High Court by its Judgment dated 5.4.99 and the aforesaid order has been assailed in the Special Leave Petition in this Court. The detenu has also filed an independent writ petition under Article 32, challenging his detention under several grounds. Both, the Special Leave Petition and the Writ Petition having been heard together are being disposed of by this common Judgment.3. The detaining authority on being satisfied from the activities of the detenu that he belongs to a notorious gang and the members of the gang hatched conspiracy to extort money from the people who are engaged in building construction business ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Whitfield v. Texas - 527 U.S. 885 (1999) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 Per Curiam WHITFIELD v. TEXAS ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS No. 98-9085. Decided June 24, 1999* Pro se petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis on this certiorari petition. The instant petition brings his total number of frivolous filings to nine. Held: Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. He is barred from filing any further petitions for certiorari or extraordinary writs in noncriminal cases unless he first pays the docketing fee and submits his petition in compliance with this Court's Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 . Motions denied. PER CURIAM. Pro se petitioner Whitfield seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request as frivolous pursuant to Rule 39.8. Whitfield is allowed until July 15, 1999, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank - 527 U.S. 627 (1999) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 Syllabus FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION EXPENSE BOARD v. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK ETAL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 98-531. Argued April 20, 1999-Decided June 23, 1999 Mter the Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act (Act) amended the patent laws to expressly abrogate the States' sovereign immunity, respondent College Savings Bank filed a patent infringement suit against petitioner Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expenses Board (Florida Prepaid), a Florida state entity. When this Court decided Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44 , Florida Prepaid moved to dismiss the action, claiming that the Act was an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to use its Article I powers to abrogate state sovereign immunity. College Savings countered that Congress had properly exercised its...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. - 527 U.S. 666 (1999) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 Syllabus COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK v. FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION EXPENSE BOARD ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 98-149. Argued April 20, 1999-Decided June 23, 1999 An individual may sue a State where Congress has authorized such a suit in the exercise of its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445 , or where a State has waived its sovereign immunity by consenting to suit, Clark v. Barnard, 108 U. S. 436 , 447-448. The Trademark Remedy Clarification Act (TRCA) subjects States to suits brought under 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act) for false and misleading advertising. Petitioner markets and sells certificates of deposit designed to finance college costs. When respondent Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board (Florida Prepaid), a Flor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2548; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)418; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)25; 1999CriLJ3962; JT1999(5)SC224; 1999(4)SCALE351
ORDERNanavati, J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, challenging his conviction and also the order of sentence passed in TADA(P) file No. 23 of 7.9.94, by the Court of Additional Judge, Designated Court, Ferozepur at Bathinda.2. The prosecution case was that the appellant alongwith Suba Singh went to the house of Mukhtiar Singh armed with fire arms, at about 9.30 p.m. on 22-9-1992 scaled the wall of the courtyard and went inside the house and after reaching the place where Mukhtiar Singh was sitting alongwith his brother Basant Singh and his uncle Sudagar Singh told Mukhtiar Singh to handover his tractor as they wanted it. Mukhtiar Singh refused to part with the tractor. Thereupon Suba Singh opened fire and killed Mukhtiar Singh on the spot. According to the prosecution, at that time appellant Pal Singh was also having a pistol in his hand. after Killing Mukhtiar Singh they starting running away. Sud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc. - 527 U.S. 516 (1999) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 Syllabus MURPHY v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1992. Argued April 27, 1999-Decided June 22, 1999 Respondent United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), hired petitioner as a mechanic, a position that required him to drive commercial vehicles. To drive, he had to satisfy certain Department of Transportation (DOT) health certification requirements, including having "no current clinical diagnosis of high blood pressure likely to interfere with his/her ability to operate a commercial vehicle safely." 49 CFR § 391.41(b)(6). Despite petitioner's high blood pressure, he was erroneously granted certification and commenced work. Mter the error was discovered, respondent fired him on the belief that his blood pressure exceeded the DOT's requirements. Petitioner brought suit under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. - 527 U.S. 471 (1999) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 Syllabus SUTTON ET AL. v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1943. Argued April 28, 1999-Decided June 22, 1999 Petitioners, severely myopic twin sisters, have uncorrected visual acuity of 20/200 or worse, but with corrective measures, both function identically to individuals without similar impairments. They applied to respondent, a major commercial airline carrier, for employment as commercial airline pilots but were rejected because they did not meet respondent's minimum requirement of uncorrected visual acuity of 20/100 or better. Consequently, they filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits covered employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of their disabilities. Among other things, the ADA defines a "disability" as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Albertson's, Inc. v. Kirkingburg - 527 U.S. 555 (1999) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 Syllabus ALBERTSON'S, INC. v. KIRKINGBURG CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 98-591. Argued April 28, 1999-Decided June 22, 1999 Before beginning a truckdriver's job with petitioner, Albertson's, Inc., in 1990, respondent, Kirkingburg, was examined to see if he met the Department of Transportation's basic vision standards for commercial truckdrivers, which require corrected distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 in each eye and distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40. Although he has amblyopia, an uncorrectable condition that leaves him with 20/200 vision in his left eye and thus effectively monocular vision, the doctor erroneously certified that he met the DOT standards. When his vision was correctly assessed at a 1992 physical, he was told that he had to get a waiver of the DOT standards under a waiver program begun that year. Albertson's, however, fired him ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Olmstead v. L. C. - 527 U.S. 581 (1999) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 Syllabus OLMSTEAD, COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, ET AL. V. L. C., BY ZIMRING, GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND NEXT FRIEND, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 98-536. Argued April 21, 1999-Decided June 22, 1999 In the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Congress described the isolation and segregation of individuals with disabilities as a serious and pervasive form of discrimination. 42 U. S. C. 12101(a)(2), (5). Title II of the ADA, which proscribes discrimination in the provision of public services, specifies, inter alia, that no qualified individual with a disability shall, "by reason of such disability," be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, a public entity's services, programs, or activities. 12132. Congress instructed the Attorney General to issue regulations implementing Title II's discrimination proscriptio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
FERTEL-RUST v. MILWAUKEE COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER ET AL - 527 U.S. 469 (1999) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 Per Curiam FERTEL-RUST v. MILWAUKEE COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER ET AL. ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS No. 98-8952. Decided June 21, 1999 Pro se petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis on her certiorari petition. The instant petition brings her total number of frivolous filings to eight. Held: Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. She is barred from filing any further certiorari petitions in noncriminal cases unless she first pays the docketing fee and submits her petition in compliance with this Court's Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 . Motion denied. PER CURIAM. Pro se petitioner Fertel-Rust seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis under Rule 39 of this Court. We deny this request pursuant to Rule 39.8. Fertel-Rust is allowed until July 12, 1999, within which to pay ...
Tag this Judgment!