Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall adjudicate all matters arising out of the elections during the transition, in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the country.
Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court has embraced the principle of the pre- disciplinary interview as required due process when an employee may be disciplined. In Case No. 470 U.S. 532, Justice Whitx, xxeaking for the majority, stated: Justice White Supreme Court of the United States 470 U.S. 532 Cleveland Board of Education x. Xxxxxxxxxx xx al Pages 9-10, 12, 13 “An essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty, or property "be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case." Xxxxxxx v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950). We have described "the root requirement of the Due Process Clause as being "that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing be- fore he is deprived of any significant property interest." in Xxxxxx v. Connecti- cut, 401 U.S. 371, 379 (1971) (emphasis in original); see Bell x. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 542 (1971). This principle requires "some kind of a hearing" prior to the discharge of an employee who has a constitutionally protected property inter- est in his employment. Board of Regents x. Xxxx, 008 U.S., at 569-570; Xxxxx x. Xxxxxxxxxx, 008 U.S. 593, 599 (1972). As we pointed out last Term, this rule has been settled [***19] for some time now. Xxxxx x. Xxxxxxx, 008 U.S. 183, 192, n. 10 (1984); id., at 200-203 (XXXXXXX, X., xxncurring in part and dissenting in part). Even decisions finding no constitutional violation in termination proce- dures have relied on the existence of some pretermination opportunity to re- spond. First, the significance of the private interest in retaining employment cannot be gainsaid. We have frequently recognized the severity of depriving a person of the means of livelihood. See Xxxxxx x. Xxxxxxxxx, 419 U.S. 379, 389 (1975); Bell x. Burson, supra, at 539; Xxxxxxxx x. Xxxxx, 007 U.S. 254, 264 (1970); Xxxxxxxx x. Family Fianc‚ Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 340 (1969). While a fired worker may find em- ployment elsewhere, doing so will take some time and is likely to be burdened by the questionable circumstances under which he left his previous job. See Xxxxxxxxx x. Xxxxxx, 414 U.S. 70, 83-84 (1973). Second, [***21] some opportunity for the employee to present his side of the case is recurringly of obvious value in reaching an accurate decision. Dismissals for cause will often involve factual disputes. Cf. Xxxxxxxx x. Xxxxxxxx, 442 U.S. 682, 686 (1979). Even where the facts are clear, the appropriateness or necessity of the dischar...
Supreme Court. The SC held that the arbitration clause is contained in the standard terms and conditions contained in the attachment to the contract. The SC held, a conscious acceptance of the arbitration clause found in another document is necessary for the purpose of incorporating it in to the contract. Where there is a reference to a document in a contract, and the reference shows that the document was not intended to be incorporated in entirety, then the reference will not make the arbitration clause in the document, a part of the contract, unless there is a special reference to the arbitration clause so as to make it applicable
Supreme Court. Records and Briefs-California (State). Number of Exhibits: 1 Leases & Rental Agreements-Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx 2017-08-30 Anyone who owns or manages residential real estate, anywhere in the U.S., should buy this book, as it provides a solid lease, that can be tailored to the laws of a specific state, and the key rental documents needed to start a tenancy.
Supreme Court. 4. Uiteindelijk moest het Supreme Court6 van het Vere- nigd Koninkrijk zich over de zaak buigen. Wegens het belang van de zaak voor de internationale arbitragewereld kwamen de bekende arbitrage-instellingen LCIA (London Court of International Arbitration) en ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) in de procedure tussen.
Supreme Court. In Nebraska Department of Revenue v. Lxxxxxxxxxx, 005 X. Xx. 000 (0094), the Supreme Court held that a mutual fund which entered into a repurchase transaction was not to be viewed as owning the underlying federal securities but as having made a loan to the holder of such securities for purposes of state taxation of the interest income. The Supreme Court did not dispute the contention of the mutual fund that repos are treated as purchases and sales for purposes of federal securities law, bankruptcy law, banking law as well as commercial and local government law or any other body of law but limited its holding to characterizing the interest as taxable or tax-exempt for Nebraska state law purposes. Furthermore, nothing in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution or other applicable law directed the Court to consider the provisions of the 1940 Act. Accordingly, the Court's holding in Nebraska Department of Revenue is not applicable to the determination whether the Repos should be viewed as Government securities for purposes of the 75 percent asset test.(12)
Supreme Court. (1) The Supreme Court may exercise jurisdiction in relation to the commission and the commissioners in the same way and to the same extent as it could if the commission were a body representing the Territory and the commissioners were Territory officers.
Supreme Court
