Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Year: 1984 Page 1 of about 334 results (0.005 seconds)

Dec 12 1984 (SC)

S. Kandaswamy Chettiar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-12-1984

Reported in : AIR1985SC257; 1984(2)SCALE933; (1985)1SCC290; [1985]2SCR398; 1985(17)LC491(SC)

..... the impugned notification must be regarded as having been based on an intelligible differentia counsel for the petitioners and the appellants also fairly conceded* that such classification would be a rationale one more so in view of the observations made by this court in that behalf in p. j. irani's case (supra). the question is whether the said classification has ..... (hat the reservation of authority in the present ordinance to deal in a special manner with such exceptional cases is unassailable on constitutional institutional grounds.in our view the same rationale must apply to the conferral of such power on the slate government to grant exemptions or to make exceptions even in cases of beneficial legislations like the present enactment in ..... to such guidance or not and, therefore, it will be useful to advert briefly to the guidance so afforded at the outset we would like to point out that the rationale behind the conferral of such power to grant exemptions or to make exceptions has been very succinctly elucidated by the american supreme court in the leading case of gorieb v .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 1984 (HC)

Prathapan Vs. Registrar, High Court of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Decided on : Apr-11-1984

Reported in : (1984)IILLJ214Ker

..... eligibility, then plainly there can be no bar for the respondent-state to seek persons with higher qualifications than the lowest level laid down by the rule makers. ordinarily, the rationale underlying the prescription of qualifications in most statutes or rules is to prevent poor or unqualified persons to be appointed to a post in the public service which requires the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 1984 (HC)

Sona Distilleries Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Excise Commissioner and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Jul-02-1984

Reported in : 1984WLN489

..... consequence of the loss or wastage of spirit stored in the distillery by fire or theft or by gauging or proof or by any other cause whatever (emphasis supplied). the rationale of this condition is quite understandable. the petitioner admittedly imports supplies of rectified spirit from other distilleries under permit granted by the state government. the petitioner holds a licence for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 1984 (HC)

Badrinath Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Chief S ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-20-1984

Reported in : (1985)2MLJ318

..... whatever few words he said were only from the service point of view and were made in good faith in the discharge of official duties by way of explaining the rationale behind disciplinary action taken against the petitioner under the all india civil services (conduct) rules, 1968. he pleaded good faith when he made the remarks to shastri ramachandran and stated .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 1984 (FN)

United States Vs. Leon

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jul-05-1984

..... only effective deterrent to lawless police action," 381 u.s. at 381 u. s. 636 , thereby suggesting that the rule rested on a deterrence rationale. but, as i have explained on another occasion, "[t]he emphasis upon deterrence in linkletter must be understood in the light of the crucial fact ..... of announcing a predetermined conclusion. [ footnote 2/10 ]" by remaining within its redoubt of empiricism and by basing the rule solely on the deterrence rationale, the court has robbed the rule of legitimacy. a doctrine that is explained as if it were an empirical proposition, but for which there is ..... demonstrates that the principles embodied in the exclusionary rule rest upon a far firmer constitutional foundation than the shifting sands of the court's deterrence rationale. but even if i were to accept the court's chosen method of analyzing the question posed by these cases, i would still conclude ..... future counterparts, a greater degree of care toward the rights of an accused. where the official action was pursued in complete good faith, however, the deterrence rationale loses much of its force." the peltier court continued, id. at 422 u. s. 542 : "if the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to ..... the form of the warrant was improper in some respect. only in the first of these three situations, however, has the court set forth a rationale for suppressing evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant; in the other areas, it has simply excluded such evidence without considering whether page 468 u. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 11 1984 (FN)

Nix Vs. Williams

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-11-1984

..... prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means -- here, the volunteers' search -- then the deterrence rationale has so little basis that the evidence should be received. [ footnote 5 ] anything less would reject logic, experience, and common sense. page 467 u. s. 445 the ..... police would have obtained that evidence if no misconduct had taken place. thus, while the independent source exception would not justify admission of evidence in this case, its rationale is wholly consistent with, and justifies, our adoption of the ultimate or inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule. it is clear that the cases implementing the exclusionary ..... doctrine -- allowing admission of evidence that has been discovered by means wholly independent of any constitutional violation -- rests on the rationale that society's interest in deterring unlawful police conduct and the public interest in having juries receive all probative evidence of a crime are properly balanced by putting the ..... that such course is needed to deter police from violations of constitutional and statutory protections notwithstanding the high social cost of letting obviously guilty persons go unpunished. on this rationale, the prosecution is not to be put in a better position than it would have been in if no illegality had transpired. by contrast, the independent source .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 1984 (FN)

Spaziano Vs. Florida

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jul-02-1984

..... calculus will not be affected by whether the death penalty is imposed by a judge or jury. [ footnote 2/23 ] page 468 u. s. 480 finally, even though the deterrence rationale may provide a basis for identifying the defendants eligible for the death penalty, our cases establish that the decision whether to condemn a man to death in a given case ..... make, that judges are better at gauging the general deterrent effect of a capital sentence than are juries. moreover, the deterrence rationale, in itself, argues only for ensuring that the death sentence be imposed in a significant number of cases and remain as a potential social response to the defined conduct. since ..... conclusion, we have stated that this is a judgment peculiarly within the competence of legislatures, and not the judiciary. [ footnote 2/21 ] page 468 u. s. 479 thus, the deterrence rationale cannot be used to support the use of judicial, as opposed to jury, discretion in capital sentencing, at least absent some finding, which the florida legislature has not purported to ..... 2/19 ] we are thus left with deterrence and retribution as the justifications for capital punishment. [ footnote 2/20 ] a majority of the court has concluded that the general deterrence rationale adequately justifies the imposition of capital punishment at least for certain classes of offenses for which the legislature may reasonably conclude that the death penalty has a deterrent effect. however .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 1984 (FN)

Pennhurst State Sch. Vs. Halderman

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-23-1984

..... generally c. jacobs, the eleventh amendment and sovereign immunity 88-91, 109-110 (1972). [ footnote 2/29 ] the distinction between the sovereign and its agents not only explains why the rationale of ex parte young and its predecessors is consistent with established sovereign immunity doctrine, but it also explains the critical difference between actions for injunctive relief and actions for damages ..... were to apply the text of the amendment, it would not bar an action against pennsylvania by one of its own citizens. see n. 17, supra. [ footnote 2/21 ] the rationale for this principle was compelling. courts did not wish to confront the king's immunity from suit directly; nevertheless they found the threat to liberty posed by permitting the sovereign ..... the question of discretion went to sovereign immunity, and not to the court's mandamus powers generally. see, e.g., philadelphia co., supra, at 223 u. s. 618 -620. the rationale appears to be that discretionary duties have a greater impact on the sovereign because they "brin[g] the operation of governmental machinery into play." larson, supra, at 337 u. s ..... apply because an official who acts unconstitutionally is "stripped of his official or representative character," young, 209 u.s. at 209 u. s. 160 . this page 465 u. s. 105 rationale, of course, created the "well-recognized irony" that an official's unconstitutional conduct constitutes state action under the fourteenth amendment, but not the eleventh amendment. florida dept. of state v .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 1984 (FN)

Segura Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jul-05-1984

..... of the constitutional violations to deprive the authorities of the advantage they gained as a result of their unconstitutional entry and impoundment of petitioners' apartment. the deterrence rationale of the exclusionary rule requires suppression unless the government can prove that the evidence in fact would have remained in the apartment had it not been unlawfully impounded. ..... justification for inordinate delay in securing a warrant. thus, applying the exclusionary rule to such conduct would impair no legitimate interest in law enforcement. moreover, the deterrence rationale of the rule is plainly applicable. the agents impounded this apartment precisely because they wished to avoid risking a loss of access to the evidence within it. thus, ..... a distinct possibility that the evidence was preserved only through an illegal occupation of petitioners' apartment. that possibility provides a sufficient reason for asking whether the deterrent rationale of the exclusionary rule is applicable to the second constitutional violation committed by the police in this case. v the importance of applying the exclusionary rule to the ..... effectively available way -- by removing the incentive to disregard it." elkins v. united states, 364 u. s. 206 , 364 u. s. 217 (1960). the deterrence rationale for the exclusionary rule sometimes, but not always, requires that it be applied to the indirect consequences of a constitutional violation. if the government could utilize evidence obtained through exploitation .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 1984 (FN)

United States Vs. Powell

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-10-1984

..... are no longer independent, if inconsistent verdicts are nevertheless reached those verdicts still are likely to be the result of mistake, or lenity, and therefore are subject to the dunn rationale. given this impasse, the factors detailed above the government's inability to invoke review, the general page 469 u. s. 69 reluctance to inquire into the workings of the jury ..... may favor the criminal defendant as well as the government militates against review of such convictions at the defendant's behest. this possibility is a premise of dunn 's alternative rationale -- that such inconsistencies often are a product of jury lenity. thus, dunn has been explained by both courts and commentators as a recognition of the jury's historic function, in ..... acceptance of a guilty verdict on a telephone facilitation count where the jury acquits the defendant of the predicate felony. we believe that the dunn rule rests on a sound rationale that is independent of its theories of res judicata, and that it therefore survives an attack based upon its presently erroneous reliance on such theories. as the dunn court noted ..... ), and ashe v. swenson, 397 u. s. 436 (1970), which hold that the doctrine of collateral estoppel would apply under those circumstances. respondent argues that this defect in dunn 's rationale precludes the rule's application in this case; indeed, respondent urges that principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel should apply to verdicts rendered by a single jury, to preclude .....

Tag this Judgment!


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