#supremecourtcase

[usnewsper-politics]

Supreme Court Case Could Change How Homeless People Sleep in Public: Protecting Constitutional Rights and Finding Compassionate Solutions #affordablehousing #compassionateapproach #comprehensivesolutions #constitutionalrights #criminalizinghomelessness #homelessindividuals #homelesspopulation #Homelessness #housingcosts #localordinance #Martinv.Boise #mentalhealthservices #NationalLawCenteronHomelessnessandPoverty #precedent #Publichealth #publicsafety #risinghomelessness #sleepinginpublicspaces #SupremeCourtcase #vulnerablepopulations

[judgementstoday]

Top Supreme Court Judgements Given In January 2023

The Supreme Court of India delivered verdicts on some of the most important cases in January 2023. Below is a list of all the decisions made by them:

January 18, 2023

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the Permanent Retirement Account Number (PRAN) is mandatory for all government servants. The bench also ruled Supreme Court judgements that the PRAN can be used to draw pension and other benefits.

The court said it was impossible to provide pensions without a PRAN number, as it provides an easy way for people to access their accounts online.

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the Permanent Retirement Account Number (PRAN) is mandatory for all government servants. This means that all government employees have to have a PRAN. Otherwise, they will be unable to take their dues and pension payments.

The purpose of this number is to identify the employees and their entitlements, such as wages, leave benefits and provident fund contributions, which must be made available by employers within 30 days from their date of joining or even before their date of joining if required by them.

January 23, 2023

The Supreme Court overrules its Supreme Court cases in the Aruna Shanbaug case, saying passive euthanasia is constitutional in India. It sets up a comprehensive procedure for withdrawal of treatment and passive euthanasia.

Supreme Court also says that even if a person is not physically fit to live, he should continue to live with dignity till his death occurs due to natural causes or the process of natural decay takes place without any medical intervention being required on his behalf of him.

Constitution Bench overrules the Supreme Court's 2019 decision in the Aruna Shanbaug case and says that passive euthanasia is constitutional in India. It sets up a comprehensive procedure for withdrawal of treatment and passive euthanasia.

The Supreme Court overruled 2019 Supreme Court decisions in the Aruna Shanbaug case, which said passive euthanasia is unconstitutional. It sets up a comprehensive procedure for withdrawal of treatment and passive euthanasia.

In February 2023, the court also ruled that medical professionals can refuse to treat patients on the grounds of conscience even if they work in government hospitals or other institutions funded by public money.

January 26, 2023

The Supreme Court holds that the Citizenship Amendment Act is constitutionally valid, but the National Register of Citizens (NRC) is unconstitutional.

The Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 was passed by Parliament and became an Act on January 26, 2019. It lays down a new legal framework for granting citizenship to Indian nationals who were born in Assam or any other state subject to conditions like having at least one parent who was an Indian citizen at the time of birth and having lived there for seven years continuously after attaining majority (18 years).

Three-judge bench rulings of the Supreme Court on the Citizenship Amendment Act and National Register of Citizens. It holds that the CAA is constitutionally valid, but NRC is unconstitutional as it will lead to massive harassment, mass detention, etc.

The Supreme Court also held that the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is constitutionally valid but that the National Register of Citizens (NRC), which is a list of all Indian citizens residing in Assam and other states, is unconstitutional as it will lead to massive harassment, mass detention and other violations of the right to liberty.

A group of petitioners challenged the NRC under Article 32, which prohibits violating fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The Latest Supreme Court case was argued before a three-judge bench comprising Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan along with Justice S A Bobde, who was assigned additional charge after Justice NV Ramana retired on December 31 last year.

January 31, 2023

A five-judge Constitutional bench was formed to decide on the Ayodhya land dispute, and this landmark decision by the Supreme Court was given on January 31, 2023.

The court ruled that dividing the land between two parties was impossible and directed the Central Government to set up a trust and hand over the site to them.

Judgment of Supreme Court on Ayodhya land dispute. The Latest Supreme Court judgments were pronounced by a five-judge Constitutional bench which held that dividing the land between two parties was impossible. Hence, it directed the Central Government to set up a trust and hand over the site to them.

The judgment was pronounced by a five-judge Constitutional bench which held that dividing the land between two parties was impossible. Hence, it directed the Central Government to set up a trust and hand over the site to them.

The court said Hindus should be given access to their religious places per their rights under Articles 14, 15(1) and 25 of the Constitution. It also noted that Muslims had been denied access over centuries at Ayodhya, but Hindus have been able to pray at other places without any hindrance from anyone.

A Lot of Big Issues were Resolved by the Supreme Court this Month.

The Supreme Court has been busy this month. It has resolved many big issues that were pending before the apex court. The Supreme Court has been very active in taking up matters that require immediate attention and are important for society or individuals who may be affected by them.

We hope you enjoyed reading these Latest Supreme Court rulings. If you want to read more about what happened in January 2023, check out blog posts and other content on the Judgements Today website.

[coolwater101]

Byron Allen's Lawsuit Aint Helping Yo Black Ass One Bit

Byron Allen was recently on the Breakfast Club. Byron Allen gave an account of his childhood, being raised by his mother, and his rise to fame and fortune. As Bryon told his story, he begins to talk about how he was trying to build relationships with TV Networks and produce shows for their companies. He meets Roger King along the way and Roger tells him how he admires him, but Roger's golf buddies are making made it clear they weren't planning to business with him. Roger King begins to remove the veil for Byron, and Byron begins to come up in the world of television and media production, etc. In this podcast, we discuss how Roger King's hand up is really what got Byron to the level he is at today, and how his lawsuit against Comcast is really not going to improve black folks lives in large numbers. Byron's need, to want to have a seat at the table, maybe the worst thing he could be seeking for himself and black folks instead of building his own damn table. Listen to "Byron Allen's Lawsuit Against Comcast Aint Helping Your Black Ass One Bit" on Spreaker. Read the full article

[nicks-squire]

Who are you Remembering today? Today, April 9th, we celebrate one of the brave women who paved the way for Rosa Parks's famous refusal to get off the bus; and Irene did it Eleven Years earlier! #irenekirkaldy #irenemorgan #irenemorgankirkaldy #greyhound #busboycott #civilrights #civilrightsmovement #morganvcommonwealthofvirginia #supremecourt #supremecourtcases #morganvvirginia #segregation #victory #yougogirl #rosaparks #mlk #mlkjr

[brookdlin]

“...a defendant’s awareness that the stream of commerce may or will sweep the product into the forum State does not convert the mere act of placing the product into the stream into an act purposefully directed toward the forum State.” - Justice O’Connor from Part II-A of the opinion from Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California (Cheng Shin, Real Party in Interest), 480 U.S. 102 (1987). . . . I’d rAther post this selfie than finish reading this god forsaken case. Oh, and #spoileralert the court had no jurisdiction. #SupremeCourtcases #civilprocedure #1L #sobored #stilltho #glitteraf

[hofculctr]

Hofstra University

Buck v. Bell -- Discussing a History of Injustice

90 years have passed since the Buck v. Bell ruling, where the United States Supreme Court upheld the forced sterilization of the “feebleminded.”

Speakers: 

Molly McCully Brown, author of "The Virginia State Colony For Epileptics and Feebleminded"

Paul Lombardo, legal historian and author of "Three Generations, No Imbeciles"

Buck v. Bell set the stage for more than 60,000 involuntary sterilizations in the United States, and it was used as a defense of the Nazi sterilization experiments at the Nuremberg trials.

Presented by Hofstra’s Department of English, the Disability Studies Program and the Hofstra Cultural Center 

Thursday, October 26, 2:20-3:45 p.m. Plaza Room Middle at the Mack Student Center Admission: Free

https://events.hofstra.edu/index.php?eID=24593

[thescoopess]

One Of The Most Politically Volatile Terms In Years Will Test The Supreme Court

One Of The Most Politically Volatile Terms In Years Will Test The Supreme Court #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt2019 #SupremeCourtCases

(more…)

[deblala]

supremecourtcase

https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/

[kamilmobile]

Aereo Supreme Court Case

Recently, Aereo Supreme Court case has been heavily discussed and covered by the news. The case started with Aereo, a startup company that allowed people to view and record over-the-air TV broadcasts over the Internet. Aereo was launched in New York back in 2012 - and it became controversial weeks after it was introduced as broadcasters sued Aereo, saying that Aereo was streaming their content without permission. The copyright infringement case ended up in the Supreme Court as Aereo disagreed, saying that their customers were just renting individual antennas that allow them to watch content that they are legally entitled to view.

The case was heard by the Supreme Court this Tuesday. The case was extremely important because it relates to the Internet economy. During the hearing, the Supreme Court expressed skepticism directed towards Aereo. As oral arguments were taking place, the justices asked how Aereo compared to other services as they wanted to know it Aereo was a cable service, a record store or something completely different.

Paul Clement, a representative from ABC, which sued Aereo said that in his view Aereo claims to help its users with managing what already belongs to them, but in reality: they give their customers stuff that they did not own before. Clement said that worrying about legal implications for cloud storage was not a main issue to solve, because cloud storage is different from what Aereo provides.

Malcolm Stewart from the Obama administration echoed Clement's words, pointing out what there is a difference between a company that provides content in the first instance and the company that gives its consumers access to content that they already have (ex. Amazon Cloud Player or Dropbox).

Aereo's attorney, David Frederick spoke sat as the justices wanted him to confirm that thousands of tiny antennas that Aereo owns were introduced in order to avoid paying fees to broadcasters. Frederick refused to acknowledge that, saying that using thousands of tine antennas helped Aereo with scaling its service up quickly.

The justices did not buy Frederick's words as Chief Justice John Roberts said that companies often tend to circumvent legal prohibitions with their technological models.

Frederick emphasized that Aereo was renting antennas and video recording equipment to its customers, so the customers were the ones who made copies of programs and privately viewed them, therefore any liability related to unauthorized copies would go back to the customers - not to the company.

In conclusion, the justices were not willing to overturn Cablevision, a court decision that established the legality of modern cloud computing services back in 2009. The justices pointed out that the Cablevision decision became settled law, so any potential arguments based on Cablevision would result in different results for Aereo, so it looks like some justices are willing to rule against Aereo in a way that would not seriously endanger the cloud economy.

[judgementstoday]

Which Are The Latest Indian Case Laws

This article will explore the latest Indian Case Laws that the judiciary has recently established. With the rapid pace of technological advancement, changes in the law have become more frequent and significant. We will provide a comprehensive overview of the most recent judgement of Supreme Court and discuss their implications for the Indian legal system.

We will also consider the potential changes to come shortly. The article will provide readers with an understanding of the latest Indian Case Laws, highlighting the importance of staying up to date with legal developments. We will also discuss the potential impact of these case laws on businesses, public policy, and individuals.

Finally, we will explore the potential challenges that may arise due to the changing legal landscape in India. This article promises to be informative and thought-provoking, providing readers with an appreciation of the latest case laws in India and the potential consequences of these developments.

"The Impact of the Supreme Court's Most Recent Rulings on Indian Law" - An examination of the most recent Supreme Court decisions and their implications for Indian law.

The Indian Supreme Court has the authority to issue judgments with far-reaching repercussions for Indian law. This article examines some of the most recent Supreme Court decisions and their implications for Indian law.

"The Pros and Cons of the Supreme Court's Recent Indian Case Law" - A weighing of the benefits and drawbacks of recent Indian case law judgements.

Pros

1. The Supreme Court cases have resolved a variety of topics, ranging from environmental protection to LGBTQ rights. These verdicts represent a significant step forward in the legal system, ensuring that all people's rights are respected.

2. Considering all relevant elements, the Supreme Court can give a more balanced perspective on some matters. This helps to guarantee that any choice is taken in the general population's best interests.

3. Supreme Court rulings are legally binding, which helps to guarantee that all citizens follow them.

Cons

1. The Supreme Court decisions can sometimes be difficult for the general people to digest and comprehend. This might cause confusion and doubt regarding the legislation, making it more difficult for individuals to comply.

2. The Supreme Court's final decisions are not appealable. This implies that they have no recourse if a side believes the judgement is incorrect or unfair.

"The Most Significant Indian Cases of the Past Year" - A look at the most important Indian cases from the previous year.

The Indian legal system is one of the worlds oldest and most recognized, with a long and illustrious history of precedent-setting decisions. As a result, several significant cases have impacted India's legal environment in the last year. This article will look at some of the most notable Indian cases from the previous year and their consequences.

There is several recent Latest supreme court case that give useful legal assistance. In addition, individuals can obtain a greater understanding of Indian laws and their legal rights and obligations by examining the most recent case laws. Finally, remaining educated about the Indian legal system is critical for understanding and complying with the nation's laws.

[damnjeanie-blog-blog]

Your probably asking yourself why I put this up. #supremecourtcase #lovingvvirginia. A black woman named milderd jeter and a white man named Richard loving sued the state of virginia for the right to get married. they were thrown in jail for going out and getting married in DC because it was legal their. So on june 12 1967 interracial marriage was legal !!! fight for love (Taken with Instagram)

[judgementstoday]

What Are The Landmark Judgements Of The Supreme Court Of India?

In this blog, we will explore the landmark judgements of the Supreme Court of India, looking at the important implications of these decisions for the country's legal system. We will discuss how these judgements have shaped the course of the law in India, and their implications for the future. We will also consider these decisions' impact on ordinary citizens' lives. By the end of this article, readers will have a good understanding of the most important Supreme Court cases, and what they mean for the nation. We will also look at the implications of these judgements for the future of India's legal system. So read on to learn more about the landmark judgements of the Supreme Court of India!

Introduction to the Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India is the country's highest judicial and final court of appeal. It is empowered to pronounce on any legal matter, constitutional or civil, under the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court is composed of a Chief Justice of India and thirty other Judges appointed by the President of India. It has original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions. It is located in New Delhi and is the country's apex court.

Definition of Landmark Judgement

Landmark Latest Supreme Court judgments are particularly significant to the development of Indian law. These rulings set new precedents for the legal system, often helping to shape the path forward for justice in the country. Landmark Judgements tend to involve important topics and involve complex legal questions. Therefore, the decisions made by the Supreme Court in such cases significantly impact Indian law and the justice system in general.

List of Landmark Judgements of the Supreme Court of India

1. Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is one of the most important landmark judgments of the Supreme Court of India. It was a landmark case that established the basic structure theory of the Constitution of India, which states that certain features of the Constitution of India are so essential to its structure that they cannot be amended even by the Parliament.

2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This landmark case is important because it established that the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of India is not restricted to the physical aspects of life but also includes the freedom of thought, expression, and belief.

3. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): This case is considered a landmark judgement since it provided for the first time a legal framework to protect women from sexual harassment in the workplace in India.

4. NALSA v. Union of India (2014): This landmark judgment recognized transgender persons as the third gender in India. The court also directed the governments to treat them as socially and educationally backward communities and provide them with proper healthcare facilities.

Impact of the Landmark Judgements of the Supreme Court of India

The landmark Supreme Court decisions have significantly impacted the country’s social and political landscape. These judgements have been instrumental in reshaping the scope of various laws and constitutional safeguards while also playing an important role in strengthening the rule of law and enshrining the rights of citizens.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of India has set several Latest Supreme Court case that will shape the nation for years. From the abolishment of untouchability and fundamental rights recognition of citizens to the ruling on the sensitivity of gender issues, the Supreme Court of India has played an important role in protecting basic rights and developing a more equitable society.   

[judgementstoday]

Explanation On The Types Of Jurisdiction Of Supreme Court

This article will explore the types of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court of India is the highest in the country and can exercise original, appellate, and advisory jurisdiction. We will discuss the three types of jurisdiction in detail and highlight their importance. Additionally, we will take a look at the scope of their powers and the differences between them. By the end of this blog, you will better understand the various types of the Supreme Court of India jurisdiction and how each type is used. So, read on to find out more!

Introduction to the Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India is the highest in the country, charged with upholding the rule of law. It is the apex court of India, taking on the most difficult Supreme Court cases and questions of law, often deciding matters of great public importance. The Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority of India, as it is the final court of appeal under the Constitution of India.

Overview of the types of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India is the country’s highest court of law and the country's ultimate judicial authority. It is established under the Indian Constitution and is vested with both Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court decisions scope can be divided into two broad categories – Original Jurisdiction and Appellate Jurisdiction.

Writ Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court of India has the power to issue writs for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights of citizens and the enforcement of the other India legal news conferred by the Constitution of India. Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court has the authority to issue five types of writs: Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo-Warranto. 

Advisory jurisdiction: Advisory jurisdiction is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India, which enables the President of India to consult the Court on any legal question. The President is not bound by the opinion or advice of the Supreme Court, but it is considered to be binding on the Court. This jurisdiction is exercised under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution. According to this article, the President can refer any matter of public importance or any question of law to the Supreme Court.

Appellate Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court of India has a special jurisdiction of hearing appeals against the decisions of the High Courts and the other courts. As per the provisions laid down in Articles 132, 133, and 134 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court has the power of appellate jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of India is the highest court of appeal for matters of jurisdiction involving the Government of India, individual states and union territories, and other jurisdictions of the country. The court has varying degrees of power, from advisory to appellate, depending on the Latest Supreme Court rulings nature and the Constitution's provisions.