The owner of a public relations firm owed no income tax on payments he received from a client company and `` kicked back '' to the company's advertising manager, the Tax Court ruled.

* 1690 – Job Charnock of the East India Company establishes a factory in Calcutta, an event formerly considered the founding of the city ( in 2003 the Calcutta High Court ruled that the city has no birthday ).

The Court also ruled that the Minister of Defense is constitutionally not entitled to act in terrorism matters, as this is the duty of the state and federal police forces.

The Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that the defendant had voluntarily entered the guilty plea, with knowledge of what that meant.

Following this ruling, Alford petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, which upheld the initial ruling, and subsequently to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which ruled that Alford's plea was not voluntary, because it was made under fear of the death penalty.

The Court ruled that the defendant can enter such a plea " when he concludes that his interests require a guilty plea and the record strongly indicates guilt.

The Court went on to note that even if the defendant could have shown that he would not have entered a guilty plea " but for " the rationale of receiving a lesser sentence, the plea itself would not have been ruled invalid.

In March 2009, U. S. District Court Judge Panner ruled in favor of the Santo Daime, acknowledging its protection from prosecution under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

A U. N. Court ruled genocide did not take place, but recognized, " a systematic campaign of terror, including murders, rapes, arsons and severe maltreatments ".

A provincial court ruled that the Lord's Day Act was unconstitutional, but the Crown proceeded to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

On April 6, 2006, in a case arising from a game involving community college baseball teams, the Supreme Court of California ruled that baseball players in California assume the risk of being hit by baseballs even if the balls were intentionally thrown so as to cause injury.

The field of modern biotechnology is thought to have largely begun on June 16, 1980, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that a genetically modified microorganism could be patented in the case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty.

Late in 1971, BJU filed suit to prevent the IRS from taking its tax exemption, but in 1974, in Bob Jones University v. Simon, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the university did not have standing to sue until the IRS actually assessed taxes.

In December 1978, the federal district court ruled in the university's favor ; two years later, that decision was overturned by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The case was heard on October 12, 1982, and on May 24, 1983, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled against Bob Jones University in Bob Jones University v. United States ( 461 U. S. 574 ).

It is currently ruled by Cameroon following the transfer of sovereignty from neighbouring Nigeria as a result of a judgment by the International Court of Justice.

The Supreme Court let a 9th circuit decision stand, and Data General was eventually forced into licensing the Operating System software because it was ruled that restricting the license to only DG hardware was an illegal tying arrangement.

In a landmark case, the European Court of Justice ( ECJ ) ruled on 5 July 1994 against the British practice of importing produce from northern Cyprus based on certificates of origin and phytosanitary certificates granted by the de facto authorities.

Those dates were chosen because in 1954 the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in schools was unlawful and 1968 is the year of Martin Luther King's assassination.

On January 27, 2009, in a lawsuit involving an accidental injury sustained during a cheerleading practice, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that cheerleading is a full-contact sport in that state.

Civil liberties groups challenged the law under the First Amendment and in 1997 the Supreme Court ruled in their favor.

In May 2010, the Washington State Supreme Court provided an opinion after it was asked to certify a question referred by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington: “ Whether a public library, consistent with Article I, § 5 of the Washington Constitution, may filter Internet access for all patrons without disabling Web sites containing constitutionally-protected speech upon the request of an adult library patron .” The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that NCRL ’ s internet filtering policy did not violate Article I, Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution.

Narayanan – AIR India Reporter 1988 Court Page No. 1381 ; 1988 Volume No. 3 SCC Court Cases Page No. 366 ; 1988 PLJR 78 – Although an affidavit may be taken as proof of the facts stated therein, the Courts have no jurisdiction to admit evidence by way of affidavit.

Although not strictly " class action litigation " as it is understood in American law, Public Interest Litigation arose out of the wide powers of judicial review granted to the Supreme Court of India and the various High Courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India respectively.

Although Emperor Kōgon ruled as cloistered Emperor, the rivalry between Ashikaga Takauji and Ashikaga Tadayoshi began, and in 1351, Takauji returned to the allegiance of the Southern Court, forcing Emperor Sukō to abdicate.

Although the trial was scheduled to start Monday, April 30, 2007 in U. S. District Court in San Francisco, the parties announced on April 25, 2007 that a settlement had been reached.

Although Maryland remained in the Union, newspaper editorials and many Marylanders, including Booth, agreed with Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's decision in Ex parte Merryman that Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional.

Although Weah was still threatening to take his claims to the Supreme Court if no evidence of fraud was found, Johnson-Sirleaf was declared winner on November 23, 2005, and took office on January 16, 2006.

Although the Court called on the United States to " cease and to refrain " from the unlawful use of force against Nicaragua and stated that the US was in " in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another state " and ordered it to pay reparations, the United States refused to comply.

Although state courts are not part of the federal system, they are also bound by U. S. Supreme Court rulings on federal law.

Although the Greenman rule was transmitted to most other states via Section 402A of the Restatement of Torts, Second ( published in 1964 after Greenman ), the Supreme Court of California refused to adopt Section 402A's " unreasonably dangerous " limitation upon strict liability in 1972.

Although the Supreme Court of California has since become more conservative, it continues to endorse and expand the doctrine.

Although the United States Supreme Court declared the ordinance unconstitutional in the next year, the ordinance remained on the books.

Although the Supreme Court has not had an occasion to interpret this specific provision, the Court has suggested that the grant to the House of the " sole " power of impeachment makes the House the exclusive interpreter of what constitutes an impeachable offense.

Although the bill aimed generally to overhaul and modernize all of the federal court system, its central and most controversial provision would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U. S. Supreme Court for every sitting member over the age of 70½, up to a maximum of six.

Although it is not explicitly protected in the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, in NAACP v. Alabama,, freedom of association to be a fundamental right protected by it.

Although there is little doubt that the writers of the Second Amendment were heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights, it is a matter of interpretation as to whether they were intent on preserving the power to regulate arms to the states over the federal government ( as the English Parliament had reserved for itself against the monarch ) or whether it was intent on creating a new right akin to the right of others written into the Constitution ( as the Supreme Court recently decided ).

Although on the basis of history and precedent the Sixth Amendment mandates unanimity in a federal jury trial, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while requiring States to provide jury trials for serious crimes, does not incorporate all the elements of a jury trial within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment and does not require jury unanimity.

Although the Eleventh Amendment immunizes states from suit for money damages or equitable relief without their consent, in Ex parte Young,, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts may enjoin state officials from violating federal law.

Although Taft had been opposed to the annexation of the islands, and had told McKinley his real ambition was to become a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, he reluctantly accepted the appointment.

Although later reversed in a pyrrhic Supreme Court victory, the impact of the scandal combined with the findings of criminal complicity ultimately destroyed the firm.

Although sometimes mentioned in subsequent rulings, the clear and present danger test was never endorsed by the Supreme Court as a test to be used by lower courts when evaluating the constitutionality of legislation that regulated speech .< ref name = K60 > Killian, pp 1096, 1100 .</ br > Currie, David P., The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Second Century, 1888-1986, Volume 2, University of Chicago Press, 1994, p 269, ISBN 9780226131122 .</ br > Konvitz, Milton Ridvad, Fundamental Liberties of a Free People: Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Transaction Publishers, 2003, p 304, ISBN 9780765809544. Eastland, p 47 .</ ref >

Although the Court referred to the clear and present danger test in a few decisions following Thornhill, the bad tendency test was not explicitly overruled, and the clear and present danger test was not applied in several subsequent free speech cases involving incitment to violence.