Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 1956 Page 11 of about 332 results (0.015 seconds)

Apr 30 1956 (FN)

United States Vs. Zucca

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-30-1956

united states v. zucca - 351 u.s. 91 (1956) u.s. supreme court united states v. zucca, 351 u.s. 91 (1956) united states v. zucca no. 213 argued january 24-25, 1956 decided april 30, 1956 351 u.s. 91 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit syllabus 1. under 340(a) of the immigration and nationality act of 1952, the filing of an "affidavit showing good cause" is a prerequisite to the maintenance of a denaturalization proceeding. pp. 351 u. s. 91 -100. (a) this conclusion is in accord with the language of the statute. pp. 351 u. s. 94 -96. (b) it is also in accord with the legislative history of the statute, its contemporaneous administrative construction, and the usual administrative practice thereunder. pp. 351 u. s. 96 -98. (c) the filing of such an affidavit is not rendered unnecessary merely because the complaint itself is verified. pp. 351 u. s. 98 -99. 2. section 340(a) is the only section under which a united states attorney may institute denaturalization proceedings. bindczyck v. finucane, 342 u. s. 76 . pp. 351 u. s. 95 , 351 u. s. 99 . 221 f.2d 805 affirmed. mr. chief justice warren delivered the opinion of the court. this is a denaturalization proceeding under 340(a) of the immigration and nationality act of 1952. [ footnote 1 ] the sole question is whether 340(a) makes the filing of the "affidavit showing good cause" a prerequisite to maintenance of the suit. the district court held that it does, page 351 u. s. 92 and ordered the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 1956 (FN)

GriffIn Vs. Illinois

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-23-1956

griffin v. illinois - 351 u.s. 12 (1956) u.s. supreme court griffin v. illinois, 351 u.s. 12 (1956) griffin v. illinois no. 95 argued december 7, 1955 decided april 23, 1956 351 u.s. 12 certiorari to the supreme court of illinois syllabus illinois law gives every person convicted in a criminal trial a right of review by writ of error; but a full direct appellate review can be had only by furnishing the appellate court with a bill of exceptions or report of the trial proceedings, certified by the trial judge, and it is sometimes impossible to prepare such documents without a stenographic transcript of the trial proceedings, which are furnished free only to indigent defendants sentenced to death. convicted in an illinois state court of armed robbery, petitioners moved in the trial court that a certified copy of the entire record, including a stenographic transcript of the proceedings, be furnished to them without cost. they alleged that they were without funds to pay for such documents, and that failure of the court to provide them would violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment. their motion was denied. they then filed a petition under the illinois post-conviction hearing act, under which only questions arising under the state or federal constitution may be raised. they alleged that there were manifest nonconstitutional errors in the trial which entitled them to have their convictions set aside on appeal, that the only impediment to full .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 1956 (FN)

Petrowski Vs. Hawkeye-security Ins. Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-26-1956

petrowski v. hawkeye-security ins. co. - 350 u.s. 495 (1956) u.s. supreme court petrowski v. hawkeye-security ins. co., 350 u.s. 495 (1956) petrowski v. hawkeye-security insurance co. no. 469 argued march 7, 1956 decided march 26, 1956 350 u.s. 495 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit syllabus the district court had jurisdiction of the subject matter in this case, and respondent, by its stipulation, waived any right to assert a lack of personal jurisdiction over it. pp. 350 u. s. 495 -496. 226 f.2d 126 reversed and remanded. per curiam. respondent, hawkeye-security insurance company, filed a motion to quash the return of service of summons on the grounds that the district court acquired no personal jurisdiction over it, and that the power of attorney which it had filed with the commissioner of motor vehicles of the state of wisconsin did not authorize him to accept service of process for it in this case. after this motion was denied, respondent filed its answer to the complaint in which it again pressed its claim that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. subsequently, however, respondent filed (1) a motion to amend its answer and to interplead; (2) a counterclaim; (3) a stipulation and order adding a party plaintiff and amending the complaint and answer; and (4) a stipulation that judgment be entered against the alleged insured in favor of the additional party plaintiff. the latter page 350 u. s. 496 stipulation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 1956 (FN)

Costello Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-05-1956

costello v. united states - 350 u.s. 359 (1956) u.s. supreme court costello v. united states, 350 u.s. 359 (1956) costello v. united states no. 72. argued january 16-17, 1956 decided march 5, 1956 350 u.s. 359 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit syllabus a defendant in a criminal case in a federal court may be required to stand trial, and his conviction may be sustained, where only hearsay evidence was presented to the grand jury which indicted him. pp. 350 u. s. 359 -364. (a) an indictment based solely on hearsay evidence does not violate the provision of the fifth amendment that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury. . . ." pp. 350 u. s. 361 -363. (b) in the exercise of its power to supervise the administration of justice in the federal courts, this court declines to establish a rule permitting defendants in criminal cases to challenge indictments on the ground that they are not supported by adequate or competent evidence. pp. 350 u. s. 363 -364. 221 f.2d 668, affirmed. mr. justice black delivered the opinion of the court. we granted certiorari in this case to consider a single question: "may a defendant be required to stand trial and a conviction be sustained where only hearsay evidence was presented to the grand jury which indicted him?" 350 u.s. 819. petitioner, frank costello, was indicted for wilfully attempting to evade payment of income .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 1956 (FN)

Greenwood Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-05-1956

greenwood v. united states - 350 u.s. 366 (1956) u.s. supreme court greenwood v. united states, 350 u.s. 366 (1956) greenwood v. united states no. 460 argued january 25, 1956 decided march 5, 1956 350 u.s. 366 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit syllabus acting under 18 u.s. c. 4244-4248, a federal district court held a hearing on the sanity of petitioner, who had been indicted for robbery of a post office and felonious assault on a postal employee and had been found by authorities of a medical center for federal prisoners to be insane and unlikely to recover in the near future. after considering conflicting testimony and reports of psychiatrists, the court found that petitioner was insane and so mentally incompetent that he could not stand trial; that, if released, he probably would endanger the safety of the officers, property, or other interests of the united states; and that no suitable arrangements for his custody and care, other than commitment to the custody of the attorney general, were available. the court therefore committed petitioner to the custody of the attorney general until his sanity should be restored or his mental condition so improved that, if released, he would not endanger the safety of the officers, property, or other interests of the united states, or until suitable arrangements could be made for his custody and care by the state of his residence. held: the district court's action is sustained. pp. 350 u. s. 367 - .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1956 (HC)

Balchand Ishwarlal Vs. East India Cotton Association Ltd. and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-18-1956

Reported in : AIR1956Bom476

coyajee, j.1. this is a notice of motion taken out by the plaintiff who has filed this suit against the east india cotton association and the defendants who are some of them members of the board of the association and others. the suit arises in the following circumstances which arose in the forward contracts market in cotton under the aegis of the east india cotton association. the east india cotton. association under its bylaws and rules regulates the conduct of the merchants dealing through the 'association by making rules from time to time and enforcing certain rules under the by-laws and rules referred to by me above.it is stated by the plaintiff that under by-law 52 of the by-laws of the association it is provided that if in the opinion of the board an emergency has arisen or exists, the board would have the power by resolution to prohibit from a date to be fixed in that behalf trading under hedge contracts in cotton at the rate or rates above, the maximum or below the minimum for such period as may be fixed by the board. it is admitted that any decision under by-law 52 is to become effective subject to the concurrence of the forward markets commission constituted under the act.2. i shall have to refer to the forward contract act and the constitution of the forward markets commission and its power in discussing the dispute between the parties before me. but before i come to that the facts as set out and which are not complicated may be set out very shortly. it is alleged .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 1956 (HC)

S.T. Sahib Vs. N. Hasan Ghani Sahib and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-10-1956

Reported in : AIR1957Mad646

ramaswami, j. 1. these are connected appeals directed against the decrees and judgments of the learned subordinate judge of tirunelveli in o. s. nos. 113 of 1950 and 25 of 1951.2. the facts are: the first defendant in both these suits s.t. sahib is a substantial landlord of vadakarai village who was formerly trading in ceylon and apparently after making his fortune there has come and settled in tirunelveli district. he had taken on lease mekkari, pathavtdtkarai thurai mutt and kumarar kovil lands. this s.t. sahib was employing as his agent muhammad hussain rowther for collecting the rents, sub-leasing etc., in respect of these lands. the mekkarai lands are found to have been taken on lease by this hussain rowther under an authorization letter from s.t. sahib at tiruvaduthurai at the rate of rs. 14,500/- per year and a preliminary agreement has been entered into on s.t. sahib's behalf by this hussain howtiier. the lease deed relating to the transaction came into effect from 1-7-1947.3. i shall now briefly describe the plaintiff in o. s. no. 113 of 1950, n. hasan ghani sahib. this ' hasan ghani sahib is a vakil of 26 years standing residing at tenkasi. he pays a beriz of rs. 325. his practice seems to be purely on the criminal side. he is said to be a close associate of another person who has been constantly figuring in our courts in sensational litigations viz,, m.d.t. kumaraswami mudaliar examined as p. w. 2 in o. s. 113 of 1950, and which association shows according to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 1956 (FN)

United States Vs. Western Pacific R. Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-03-1956

united states v. western pacific r. co. - 352 u.s. 59 (1956) u.s. supreme court united states v. western pacific r. co., 352 u.s. 59 (1956) united states v. western pacific railroad co. no. 18 argued october 15, 1956 decided december 3, 1956 352 u.s. 59 certiorari to the court of claims syllabus the three respondent railroads sued the united states in the court of claims under the tucker act to recover the difference between the tariff rates actually paid and those allegedly due on certain army shipments of steel aerial bomb cases filled with napalm gel, but without the bursters and fuses required to ignite them. the carriers claimed to be entitled to payment at the high first class rates established in item 1820 of consolidated freight classification no. 17 for "incendiary bombs." in each case, the suit was brought within six years, though not within two years, after the cause of action accrued. the court of claims entered summary judgment for respondents. on review here, held: 1. in the circumstances here presented, the question of tariff construction, as well as that of the reasonableness of the tariff as applied, was within the exclusive primary jurisdiction of the interstate commerce commission. pp. 352 u. s. 62 -70. (a) the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, like the rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies, is concerned with promoting proper relationships between the courts and administrative agencies charged with particular regulatory duties. pp. 352 u. s. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 11 1956 (FN)

United States Vs. Mckesson and Robbins, Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-11-1956

united states v. mckesson & robbins, inc. - 351 u.s. 305 (1956) u.s. supreme court united states v. mckesson & robbins, inc., 351 u.s. 305 (1956) united states v. mckesson & robbins, inc. no. 448 argued april 30, 1956 decided june 11, 1956 351 u.s. 305 appeal from the united states district court for the southern district of new york syllabus appellee is the largest drug wholesaler in the united states, and sells to retailers in many states. it also manufactures its own line of brand-name drugs, which it sells to retailers and to independent wholesalers in many states. it refused to sell its brand products to independent wholesalers which had not entered into agreements that, in wholesaling appellee's products, they would adhere to the wholesale prices fixed by appellee. as a result, many independent wholesalers which were in direct competition with appellee's wholesaling operations signed such agreements. held: such price-fixing agreements were not exempted from the prohibitions of 1 of the sherman act by the "fair-trade" provisions of the miller-tydings act or the mcguire act. pp. 351 u. s. 306 -316. (a) such price-fixing agreements are illegal per se under 1 of the sherman act unless they are within the exemptions of the miller-tydings act or the mcguire act. pp. 351 u. s. 308 -311. (b) the exemptions of the miller-tydings act and the mcguire act are expressly made inapplicable to agreements "between wholesalers" or "between persons, firms, or corporations in competition .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1956 (FN)

Fpc Vs. Sierra Pacific Power Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-27-1956

fpc v. sierra pacific power co. - 350 u.s. 348 (1956) u.s. supreme court fpc v. sierra pacific power co., 350 u.s. 348 (1956) federal power commission v. sierra pacific power co. argued november 8, 1955 decided february 27, 1956 * 350 u.s. 348 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit syllabus a supplier of electric power which is a "public utility" subject to regulation under part ii of the federal power act entered into a contract, duly filed with the federal power commission, to supply electric power to a distributor at a special low rate for 15 years. before expiration of the contract, and without the consent of the distributor, the supplier filed with the commission under 205(d) of the act a schedule purporting to increase its rate to the distributor. acting under 205(e), the commission conducted proceedings to determine the reasonableness of the new rate, denied the distributor's motion to reject the filing on the ground that the supplier could not thus unilaterally change the contract, and held the new rate not to be "unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, or preferential." held: 1. these proceedings were not effective to supersede the supplier's contract with the distributor. united gas pipe line co. v. mobile gas service corp., ante, p. 350 u. s. 332 . pp. 350 u. s. 352 -353. 2. the requirements of 206(a), which provides that, if the commission finds an existing rate to be "unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory .....

Tag this Judgment!


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