Comentarios de la gente - Escribir un comentario
No encontramos ningún comentario en los lugares habituales.
Otras ediciones - Ver todas
action activity administrative agreement Amendment antitrust apply approval argued argument Attorney authority basis benefits Board brief cause Certiorari denied claim Clause commerce Commission competition concern concluded concurring conduct Congress considered constitutional Corp corporate cost course Court of Appeals criminal decision defendant determine dismissed dissenting District Court effect employees equal established evidence exercise fact federal filed further Government granted hearing held holding important imposed Indian individual interest involved issue joined Judge judgment judicial jurisdiction jury JUSTICE labor legislative limited Maryland matter means ment noted operation Opinion parties person petitioner political present procedural proceedings prohibition protection question reason record regulation Reported respect respondent result rule Senate standards Stat statute Supp supra tion trial tribes United vessels violation York
Página 849 - 310 (1897). One may entertain a healthy skepticism as to whether the General Court left reason free to combat error by their legislation; and it most assuredly did not leave undisturbed corporations which opposed its proposed personal income tax as "monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated.
Página 402 - of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
Página 726 - It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer— "(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin . . . .
Página 401 - are general definitional sections which define "person" or "persons," "wherever used in this [Act] ... to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country." " Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat.
Página 545 - balance favors the issuance of a permit. 5 When a license application is contested, the Licensing Board must find reasonable assurance that the plant can be operated without undue risk and will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. See 42 USC
Página 143 - Hearings on S. 407 et al. before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., 536 (1975 Senate Hearings) (testimony of J. Stanley Pottinger, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division). See also South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 US 301, 358
Página 647 - to the free exercise of his religion made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, the judgment of the Tennessee Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN took no part in
Página 46 - Among those agreements that must be filed are those "controlling, regulating, preventing, or destroying competition." The Commission is empowered to "disapprove, cancel, or modify" any such agreement that it finds to be "unjustly discriminatory or unfair as between carriers, shippers, exporters, importers, or ports, ... or to operate to the detriment
Página 319 - 1153 provided in relevant part: "Any Indian who commits against the person or property of another Indian or other person any of the following offenses, namely, . . . carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years, . . . within the Indian country, shall be subject to the same
Página 11 - [t]he applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not." Blockburger v. United States, supra, at 304.