Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: us supreme court Year: 2003 Page 6 of about 67 results (0.103 seconds)

Dec 10 2003 (FN)

McConnell Vs. Federal Election Comm'n

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-10-2003

..... . 58 , 65, n. 6 (1963) ( the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press embraces the circulation of books as well as their publication ). division of labor requires a means of mediating exchange, and in a commercial society, that means is supplied by money. the publisher pays the author for the right to sell his book; it pays its staff who print .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2003 (FN)

Castro Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-15-2003

castro v. united states - 02-6683 (2003) syllabus october term, 2003 castro v. united states supreme court of the united states castro v. united states certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit no. 02 6683. argued october 15, 2003 decided december 15, 2003 in 1994, petitioner castro attacked his federal drug conviction in a pro se motion for a new trial pursuant to federal rule of criminal procedure 33. the government responded that the claims were more cognizable as federal habeas claims under 28 u. s. c. 2255. the district court denied castro s motion on the merits, referring to it as both a rule 33 and a 2255 motion. castro did not challenge this recharacterization of his motion on his pro se appeal, and the eleventh circuit summarily affirmed. in 1997, castro, again pro se, filed a 2255 motion raising, inter alia, a new claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. the district court denied the motion, but the eleventh circuit remanded for the district court to consider, among other things, whether this was castro s second 2255 motion. the district court appointed counsel, determined that the 1997 motion was indeed castro s second 2255 motion (the 1994 motion being his first), and dismissed the motion for failure to comply with 2255 s requirement that castro obtain the court of appeals permission to file a second or successive motion. the eleventh circuit affirmed. held: 1. this court s review of castro s claim is not barred by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 2003 (FN)

Maryland Vs. Pringle

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-15-2003

maryland v. pringle - 02-809 (2003) syllabus october term, 2003 maryland v. pringle supreme court of the united states maryland v. pringle certiorari to the court of appeals of maryland no. 02 809. argued november 3, 2003 decided december 15, 2003 a police officer stopped a car for speeding at 3:16 a.m.; searched the car, seizing $763 from the glove compartment and cocaine from behind the back-seat armrest; and arrested the car s three occupants after they denied ownership of the drugs and money. respondent pringle, the front-seat passenger, was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of cocaine, and was sentenced to 10 years incarceration without the possibility of parole. the maryland court of special appeals affirmed, but the state court of appeals reversed, holding that, absent specific facts tending to show pringle s knowledge and dominion or control over the drugs, the mere finding of cocaine in the back armrest when pringle was a front-seat passenger in a car being driven by its owner was insufficient to establish probable cause for an arrest for possession. held: because the officer had probable cause to arrest pringle, the arrest did not contravene the fourth and fourteenth amendments. maryland law authorizes police officers to execute warrantless arrests, inter alia , where the officer has probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed or is being committed in the officer s presence. here, it is uncontested that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 26 2003 (FN)

Wiggins Vs. Smith

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-26-2003

wiggins v. smith - 539 u.s. 510 (2003) october term, 2002 syllabus wiggins v. smith, warden, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit no.02-311. argued march 24, 2003-decided june 26, 2003 in 1989, petitioner wiggins was convicted of capital murder by a maryland judge and subsequently elected to be sentenced by a jury. his public defenders, schlaich and nethercott, moved to bifurcate the sentencing, representing that they planned to prove that wiggins did not kill the victim by his own hand and then, if necessary, to present a mitigation case. the court denied the motion. at sentencing, nethercott told the jury in her opening statement that they would hear, among other things, about wiggins' difficult life, but such evidence was never introduced. before closing arguments and outside the presence of the jury, schlaich made a proffer to the court to preserve the bifurcation issue for appeal, detailing the mitigation case counsel would have presented. schlaich never mentioned wiggins' life history or family background. the jury sentenced wiggins to death, and the maryland court of appeals affirmed. represented by new counsel, wiggins sought postconviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence of his dysfunctional background. he presented expert testimony by a forensic social worker about the severe physical and sexual abuse he had suffered at the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 26 2003 (FN)

Nike, Inc. Vs. Kasky

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-26-2003

nike, inc. v. kasky - 539 u.s. 654 (2003) october term, 2002 syllabus nike, inc., et al. v. kasky certiorari to the supreme court of california no. 02-575. argued april 23, 2003-decided june 26, 2003 certiorari dismissed. reported below: 27 cal. 4th 939, 45 p. 3d 243. laurence h. tribe argued the cause for petitioners. with him on the briefs were thomas c. goldstein, amy howe, walter dellinger, david j. brown, and james n. penrod. solicitor general olson argued the cause for the united states as amicus curiae urging reversal. with him on the brief were assistant attorney general mccallum, deputy solicitor general clement, jeffrey p. minear, and jeffrey a. lamken. paul r. hoeber argued the cause for respondent. with him on the brief were alan m. caplan, roderick p. bushnell, patrick j. coughlin, randi dawn bandman, albert h. meyerhoff, and sylvia sum. * *briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for abc inc. et al. by bruce e. h. johnson, p. cameron devore, kelli l. sager, henry s. hoberman, theresa a. chmara, richard m. schmidt, jr., david a. schulz, r. bruce rich, jonathan bloom, susanna m. lowy, anthony m. bongiorno, harold w fuson, jr., jonathan r. donnellan, stuart d. karle, barbara w wall, jack n. goodman, james m. lichtman, neal a. jackson, george freeman, rene p. milam, henry z. horbaczewski, lucy a. dalglish, jane e. kirtley, bruce w sanford, robin bierstedt, karlene w goller, and eric n. lieberman; for the american civil liberties union et al. by mark j. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 26 2003 (FN)

Stogner Vs. California

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-26-2003

stogner v. california - 539 u.s. 607 (2003) october term, 2002 syllabus stogner v. california certiorari to the court of appeal of california, first appellate district no. 01-1757. argued march 31, 2003-decided june 26, 2003 in 1993, california enacted a new criminal statute of limitations permitting prosecution for sex-related child abuse where the prior limitations period has expired if, inter alia, the prosecution is begun within one year of a victim's report to police. a subsequently added provision makes clear that this law revives causes of action barred by prior limitations statutes. in 1998, petitioner stogner was indicted for sex-related child abuse committed between 1955 and 1973. at the time those crimes were allegedly committed, the limitations period was three years. stogner moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the ex post facto clause forbids revival of a previously time-barred prosecution. the trial court agreed, but the california court of appeal reversed. the trial court denied stogner's subsequent dismissal motion, in which he argued that his prosecution violated the ex post facto and due process clauses. the court of appeal affirmed. held: a law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the ex post facto clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution. california's law extends the time in which prosecution is allowed, authorizes prosecutions that the passage of time has previously .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2003 (SC)

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Mrs. Vijaya C. Gurshaney and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-26-2003

Reported in : AIR2003SC3669; (2003)4CompLJ377(SC); 106(2003)DLT181(SC); JT2003(8)SC278; (2003)3MLJ204(SC); 2003(6)SCALE685; (2003)7SCC301

sema, j. 1. these two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. civil appeal no. 34 of 1995 has been preferred against the judgment dated 10.5.1994 passed by the high court in c.w.p.no. 3696 of 1992 and civil appeal no. 5424 of 1999 is preferred against the order of the national consumer disputes redressal commission, new delhi, dated 1.4.1998 passed in revision petition no. 933 of 1997. since the facts of both the appeals are identical, we are taking the facts from civil appeal no. 34 of 1995. 2. shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal arises under the following circumstances: -one ram dhan (since deceased) had purchased a plot no. d-3, community center, narayana, in the public auction held by the delhi development authority (hereinafter the 'dda') on 25.5.1969. the perpetual lease deed of the plot was executed between ram dhan and the president of india on 17.2.1972. on 18.9.1978, ram dhan died without any construction on the plot. the respondent herein - mrs. vijaya c. gurshaney, seems to have applied for grant of letters of administration to the district judge, delhi, on the strength of a will, said to have been executed by ram dhan on 26.10.1977 in her favour. it appears that the district judge granted letters of administration on 7.5.1980. thereafter, the respondent had applied to dda for substitution of her name in place of deceased ram dhan. dda issued show cause notice for non-construction on plot within the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 2003 (SC)

Remco Inds. Workers House Bldg. Coop. Soc. Vs. Lakshmeesha M. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-28-2003

Reported in : AIR2003SC3167; (2004)97CALLT83(SC); 97(2004)CLT83(SC); JT2005(11)SC360; 2003(6)SCALE789; (2003)11SCC666

dharmadhikari, j.1. these two appeals arise out of common judgment dated 06.9.1996 passed by the high court of karnataka at bangalore in cross appeals filed by the plaintiff and defendants [regular first appeal nos. 191/1987 & 747/1986] against the judgment dated 30.10.1986 of city civil court, bangalore in civil suit no. 5634 of 1980. the appellant which is a housing co-operative society of workers in remco industries, was defendant no. 2 before the trial court.2. the subject matter of dispute is the land in survey no. 132/2 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas [now said to have been merged into survey no. 305] situate in village kempapur (now part of bangalore city). the present appellant - society of workers claims title to the land and it is submitted that it has built houses for its members on it. it is not in dispute that the suit land was an inam land. inams were abolished by karnataka (personal & miscellaneous) inams abolition act, 1954. under the said act, tenants in occupation of land are given preferential right to apply for occupancy rights and if they fail to do so, the inamdar has been given a right to apply for grant of occupancy rights.3. the plaintiff [respondent no. 1 herein] is the purchaser of suit land from smt. subbalakshamma, the inamdar. one muniyappa who claimed to be a tenant, applied on 22.4.1959 for grant of occupancy rights - amongst others on the suit land. his application for grant of occupancy rights for suit land in survey no. 132/2 with others lands was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 2003 (SC)

Audhar and ors. Vs. Chandrapati and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-15-2003

Reported in : AIR2003SC4389; JT2005(11)SC336; 2003(7)SCALE502; (2003)11SCC458

dharmadhikari, j. 1. a common judgment is being gassed in these two appeals as the subject matter of dispute in both of them is the same. civil appeal no. 6302 of 2001 has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.8.1998 passed by the learned single judge of the allahabad high court in civil misc. writ petition no. 678 of 1979. rejection by order dated 09.12.1998 of review petition no. 54933/98 filed by the appellants against the said judgement has given rise to connected civil appeal no. 6303 of 2001.2. the facts of this case are many and somewhat complicated but the question of law involved is a short one.3. it is not disputed by the appellants, as is apparent from the contents of their petition for special leave, that the lands in khata nos. 91, 92, 95 and 96 are tenancy lands of category 'bhumidari' and other lands in dispute in khata nos. 256, 283, 356 and 357 are tenancy lands of another category 'sirdari'. the lands are in village patilo gausput, district azam garh in the state of uttar pradesh.4. the writ petition before the high court arose out of order dated 09.11.1976 of the assistant director, consolidation, azam garh which was passed in exercise of his revisional powers under section 48 of the u.p. consolidation of holdings act of 1953 [for short the consolidation act of 1953].5. bereft of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are as under:-6. the main ancestor of the parties named duggan was survived by four sons viz., prag, tulsi, narain and ram saran. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 2003 (SC)

Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Sri Jagadish Kalita and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-07-2003

Reported in : 2004(1)AWC105(SC); 2003(3)BLJR2399; (SCSuppl)2004(1)CHN8; [2004(2)JCR86(SC)]; JT2003(8)SC26; 2004(2)MhLj611; 2004MPLJ259(SC); (2004)137PLR255; 2003(8)SCALE356; (2004)1SCC27

s.b. sinha, j. 1. this appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 20.5.1991 passed by gauhati high court dismissing the second appeal preferred by the appellant herein. background fact 2. md. sadagar sheikh was the original owner of the suit premises. he transferred the same to gayaram kalita and kashiram kalita. the premises in suit, thus, owned and possessed by the said gayaram kalita and kashiram kalita, who were brothers. by reason of a registered deed of partition dated 1.12.1938, the structures standing on the land in suit being holding nos. 522 and 523 of the nalbari municipality were divided into half and half, each measuring 51/2 lechas. prafulla kalita, son of gayaram kalita, allegedly, amalgamated both the said holdings and got them registered in his name as holding no. 121 in the records of nalbari municipality. holding no. 522 was sold and portion of holding no. 523 was leased out in favour of the respondent no. 3 by prafulla kalita. 3. upon the death of md. sadagar sheikh, however, his sons got the lands mutated in their favour in mutation case no. 414/70-71 in terms of an order of the sub divisional officer of the nalbari municipality. 4. by reason of a registered deed of sale dated 28.11.1972, the defendants nos. 7, 8 & 9 transferred their possessory rights in holding no. 523 including the house to the appellant for valuable consideration. on or about 24.9.1977, the legal representatives of md. sadagar sheikh, being defendant nos. 10, 11 & 12 .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //