Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 1956 Page 9 of about 332 results (0.017 seconds)

May 14 1956 (FN)

Cahill Vs. New York, N.H. and H. R. Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-14-1956

cahill v. new york, n.h. & h. r. co. - 351 u.s. 183 (1956) u.s. supreme court cahill v. new york, n.h. & h. r. co., 351 u.s. 183 (1956) cahill v. new york, new haven & hartford railroad co. no. 436 decided may 14, 1956 351 u.s. 183 on a motion to recall and amend the judgment syllabus 1. the motion of respondent to recall the judgment of this court in this case is granted, and the judgment is amended to provide for a remand of the cause to the court of appeals for further proceedings. pp. 351 u. s. 183 -184. 2. the original order entered by the court in this case, 350 u.s. 898, is deemed erroneous, and it is recalled in the interest of fairness. p. 351 u. s. 184 . 3. even when a petition for rehearing has been denied, rule 58(4) of the rules of this court, barring consecutive and out-of-time petitions for rehearing, does not preclude a motion to correct the kind of error involved in the court's original order in this case. p. 351 u. s. 184 . 4. this cause is not moot, though the judgment has been paid. p. 351 u. s. 184 . 350 u.s. 898, judgment recalled and amended. per curiam. respondent filed a motion to recall and amend the judgment in the above-entitled cause, 350 u.s. 898, for the purpose of remanding the cause to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit for further proceedings. prior to the filing of this motion, and after the district court denied an application for a stay of execution, the judgment was satisfied, but petitioner was informed that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 11 1956 (FN)

Parr Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-11-1956

parr v. united states - 351 u.s. 513 (1956) u.s. supreme court parr v. united states, 351 u.s. 513 (1956) parr v. united states argued march 28, 1956 decided june 11, 1956 * 351 u.s. 513 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit syllabus 1. petitioner was indicted in one division of the federal district court for the southern district of texas, and that court granted his motion to transfer the case to another division on the ground that local prejudice would prevent a fair trial in the division where he was indicted. subsequently, the government obtained a new indictment in another district for the same offenses and moved in the first court for dismissal of the first indictment. this motion was granted, and petitioner appealed. held: the court of appeals was without jurisdiction, because there was no final judgment. pp. 351 u. s. 514 -521. (a) considering the first indictment alone, an appeal from its dismissal will not lie, because petitioner has not been aggrieved, even though he is left open to further prosecution. pp. 351 u. s. 516 -517. (b) viewing the two indictments together as parts of a single prosecution, dismissal of the first indictment was not a final order, but only an interlocutory step in petitioner's prosecution. pp. 351 u. s. 518 -519. (c) dismissal of the first indictment does not come within the exceptions to the rule of "finality," because lack of an appeal at this stage will not deny effective review of his claim that he was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 11 1956 (FN)

United States Vs. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-11-1956

united states v. e. i. du pont de nemours & co. - 351 u.s. 377 (1956) u.s. supreme court united states v. e. i. du pont de nemours & co., 351 u.s. 377 (1956) united states v. e. i. du pont de nemours & co. no. 5 argued october 11, 1955 decided june 11, 1956 351 u.s. 377 appeal from the united states district court for the district of delaware syllabus in a civil action under 4 of the sherman act, the government charged that appellee had monopolized interstate commerce in cellophane in violation of 2 of the act. during the relevant period, appellee produced almost 75% of the cellophane sold in the united states; but cellophane constituted less than 20% of all flexible packaging materials sold in the united states. the trial court found that the relevant market for determining the extent of appellee's market control was the market for flexible packaging materials, and that competition from other materials in that market prevented appellee from possessing monopoly powers in its sales of cellophane. accordingly, it dismissed the complaint. held: the judgment is affirmed. pp. 351 u. s. 378 -404. (a) the ultimate consideration in determining whether an alleged monopolist violates 2 of the sherman act is whether the defendant controls prices and competition in the market for such part of trade or commerce as he is charged with monopolizing. p. 351 u. s. 380 . (b) a party has monopoly power contrary to 2 of the sherman act if it has, over "any part of the trade or commerce among the .....

Tag this Judgment!

1956

Mesarosh Vs. Us

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-01-1956

mesarosh v. us - 352 u.s. 808 (1956) u.s. supreme court mesarosh v. us , 352 u.s. 808 (1956) 352 u.s. 808 stephen mesarosh, also known as steve nelson, et al., petitioners, v. united states of america. no. 20. supreme court of the united states october 8, 1956 solicitor general rankin and assistant attorney general tompkins, for the united states. messrs. frank j. donner, arthur kinoy, marshall perlin and hubert t. delany, for petitioners. mr. justice frankfurter. less than six months ago, in communist party v. subversive activities control board, 351 u.s. 115 , a case that raised important constitutional issues, this court refused to pass on those issues when newly discovered evidence was alleged to demonstrate that the record out of which those issues arose was tainted. it did so in the following language: 'when uncontested challenge is made that a finding of subversive design by petitioner was in part the product of three perjurious witnesses, it does not remove the taint for a reviewing court to find that there is ample innocent testimony to support the board's findings. if these witnesses in fact committed perjury in testifying in other cases on subject matter substantially like that of their testimony in the present proceedings, their testimony in this pro- page 352 u.s. 808 , 809 ceeding is inevitably discredited and the board's determination must duly take this fact into account. we cannot pass upon a record containing such challenged testimony. ...' 351 u.s. at .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 18 1956 (HC)

The Management the Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi Vs. the Chief Commi ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-18-1956

Reported in : AIR1957P& H102; (1957)IILLJ466P& H

orderfalshaw, j. 1. this is a petition under article 226 of the constitution by a company, the hindustan times ltd. of new delhi, challenging the reference by the delhi state government under sections 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the industrial disputes act of 1947 of an alleged industrial dispute between the management of the company and its editorial workmen to an industrial tribunal. 2. briefly stated the facts are as follows. m. l. madan, respondent no. 3 entered the employment of the company as a sub-editor in january, 1950. the terms of his employment are contained in annexure 'b' to the petition providing inter alia that he should be paid rs. 300 per mensem in the grade' of rs. 200-20-400 and that his appointment should be for three years, terminable thereafter on two months' notice by either side. apparently in december 1955 he was found guilty of some error in his work as regards one of the front page headlines which resulted in the press having to be stopped after 300 copies of the following day's issue had been printed, and the correction resulted in a delay in the issuing of the paper, and on the 10th of december he was informed by the news editor that he . need not report for duty again until he received further instructions. the respondent. apparently objected and tried to get this order set aside but finally he was dismissed from the company's service by the managing editor on the 23rd of december. 3. m. l. madan was apparently a founder member and a member of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 1956 (SC)

Ram Krishan and anr. Vs. the State of Delhi

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-09-1956

Reported in : AIR1956SC476; 1956CriLJ837; (1957)ILLJ4SC; [1956]1SCR182

chandrasekhara aiyar, j.1. ram kishan, the first appellant in criminal appeal no. 43, is a partner-proprietor in the firm of kundan lal raja ram of saharanpur. prem chand, the second appellant, is a partner in the firm of narain prasad and prem chand in the same place. the appellant, gian chand, is the munim of a firm called lekh raj shambhu nath. some of the saharanpur merchants, including the three firms, were suspected of exporting potatoes at concessional rates on false declarations or certificates that they were seed potatoes. police investigation was proceeding in this connection at saharanpur in october, 1951. madan lal, railway section officer, examined as p. w. 4 in the case, was deputed by the railway department to assist the special police establishment in the investigation. labhu ram, railway parcels clerk in the railway at saharanpur, was deputed by the station master to help the police party. 2. it is alleged by the prosecution that during the progress of the investigation, and after the houses and shops of the accused persons had been searched, ram kishan took labhu ram aside and proposed that the three firms would be prepared to pay rs. 2,000 if the case was hushed up and that madan lal was to be sounded. madan lal refused to have anything to do with such a proposal, but as the accused persisted in their offer, it was ultimately decided that a trap should be laid for them at delhi in madan lal's house. it is unnecessary to narrate in detail the steps taken in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 1956 (SC)

Vikrama Das Mahant Vs. Daulat Ram Asthana and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-15-1956

Reported in : AIR1956SC382

jagannadhadas, j.1. this is an appeal by the first defendant against the affirming judgment and decree of the high court of allahabad dated 22-2-1949, on a certificate granted by the said court under article 133(1)(a) of the constitution. the suit out of which this appeal arises relates to an ancient thakurdwara in the village of amaulipur containing a temple of sri hanumanji and sri thakurji, the entire institution being known as amaulipur asthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the asthan').the asthan owns large property dedicated to it and specified in lists a, b and c of the plaint. the entire income of these properties is spent for the bhog of the idols and in maintaining a sada-bart for sadhoos and faqirs. there is a fairly long history of litigation relating to this asthan since about 1926 which it is necessary to set out for a correct appreciation of the points that arise for decision in the present appeal.2. one ganapat das, a previous mahant of the asthan died in the year 1920. he was succeeded by mahant bharat das, still alive, who according to the plaintiffs' case, became mentally deranged. bharat das appears to have executed on 11-5-1925, a power of attorney in favour of one gomati das.about a year later, i.e., on 10-7-1926, he executed another document purporting to transfer his mahantship in favour of the present first defendant-appellant, vikrama das. this led to a suit no. 27 of 1927 by gomati das against the present first defendant for the declarations that (a) .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 07 1956 (FN)

Covey Vs. Town of Somers

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-07-1956

covey v. town of somers - 351 u.s. 141 (1956) u.s. supreme court covey v. town of somers, 351 u.s. 141 (1956) covey v. town of somers no. 380 argued march 29, 1956 decided may 7, 1956 351 u.s. 141 appeal from the court of appeals of new york syllabus under article vii-a, title 3, of the new york tax law, a town proceeded to foreclose a lien for delinquent taxes on the real estate of a long-time resident. in accordance with the statute, the taxpayer was given no notice except by mail, posting notice at the post office, and publication in two local newspapers. she filed no answer, judgment of foreclosure was entered, and a deed to her property was delivered to the town. a few days later, she was adjudged insane and committed to a hospital for the insane. subsequently, appellant was appointed committee of her person and property, and he filed a motion in the trial court where the judgment of foreclosure had been entered to have the default opened, the judgment vacated and the deed set aside. he alleged that, prior to entry of the judgment of foreclosure, the taxpayer was well known by town officials to be financially able to meet her obligations but mentally incompetent to handle her affairs or to understand the meaning of any notice served upon her, and that no attempt had been made to have a committee appointed for her person or property. held: assuming the truth of these allegations, the notice provided under the statute was inadequate as applied to this incompetent taxpayer .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 12 1956 (HC)

Budhu Vs. Nahru and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : May-12-1956

Reported in : AIR1956HP50

orderramabhadran, j.c.1. these two revision petitions can be disposed of conveniently by means of one judgment, as they involve common points for determination. in the case of civil revision no. 53 of 1954, a further point for determination arises, as to whether the suit giving rise to it was barred by the provisions of order 2, rule 2, c. p. c. i shall refer to that point also in due course.2. (a) the first point to be considered in both the revision petitions is the value of an entry in the khewat abadi of nagar mandi. the learned district judge has remarked that there was nothing on the record to show under what law the khewat abadi was prepared and what evidentiary value should be attached to the entries therein. he has further remarked that under section 35, evidence act, an entry in any public or other official book, register or record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person, in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country, is itself a relevant fact.entries in question were made by the patwari, but in the opinion of the learned district judge, there was nothing to indicate that it was a part of his official duties to make such entries. the entries in the khewat abadi, followed certain mutations ordered by the former ruler of mandi state, in favour of the plaintiff. learned counsel for the petitioner . (mr. d. n. vaidya) argued that the mutation orders were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 1956 (FN)

Rea Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-16-1956

rea v. united states - 350 u.s. 214 (1956) u.s. supreme court rea v. united states, 350 u.s. 214 (1956) rea v. united states no. 30 argued november 10, 1955 decided january 16, 1956 350 u.s. 214 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit syllabus on the basis of evidence seized under an invalid federal search warrant, petitioner was indicted in a federal court for unlawful acquisition of marihuana. on his motion under rule 41(e) of the federal rules of criminal procedure, this evidence was suppressed. thereafter, he was charged in a state court with possession of marihuana in violation of state law. alleging that the evidence suppressed in the federal court was the basis of the state charge, petitioner moved in a federal court for an order enjoining the federal agent who had seized the evidence from transferring it to state authorities or testifying with respect thereto in the state courts. held: the motion should have been granted. pp. 350 u. s. 214 -218. 218 f.2d 237 reversed. mr. justice douglas delivered the opinion of the court. petitioner was indicted for the unlawful acquisition of marihuana in violation of 26 u.s.c. 2593(a). the indictment, found in september, 1953, was based on evidence obtained by a search warrant issued by a united states commissioner, as authorized by rule 41(a) of the rules of criminal procedure in august, 1953. petitioner moved under rule 41(e) to suppress the evidence on the ground that the search warrant was .....

Tag this Judgment!


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