Court : US Supreme Court
Gouled v. United States - 255 U.S. 298 (1921) U.S. Supreme Court Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298 (1921) Gouled v. United States No. 250 Argued January 4, 1921 Decided February 28, 1921 255 U.S. 298 CERTIFICATE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments are to be liberally construed. P. 255 U. S. 303 . 2. When a defendant in a criminal case first learns of the Government's possession of his document when it is offered against him on the trial, his objection that it was obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure should not be overruled as coming too late. P. 255 U. S. 305 . 3. An unreasonable search and seizure, in the sense of the Fourth Amendment, does not necessarily involve the employment of force or coercion, but is committed when a representative of any branch or subdivision of the Government, by stealth, through social acquaintance, or in the guise of a business call, gains entrance to the house ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Snyder v. Massachusetts - 291 U.S. 97 (1934) U.S. Supreme Court Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934) Snyder v. Massachusetts No. 241 Argued November 7, 1933 Decided January 8, 1934 291 U.S. 97 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus 1. So far as the Fourteenth Amendment is concerned, the presence of the defendant in a prosecution for felony is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence, and to that extent only. P. 291 U. S. 105 . 2. In a state prosecution for murder, the accused was denied permission to attend a view, which was ordered by the court on motion of the prosecution, at the opening of the trial. The jurors, under a sworn bailiff, visited the scene of the crime, accompanied by the judge, the counsel for both parties and the court stenographer. The counsel, acting as showers by the permission of the judge, pointed out particular features of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Worcester County Trust Co. v. Riley - 302 U.S. 292 (1937) U.S. Supreme Court Worcester County Trust Co. v. Riley, 302 U.S. 292 (1937) Worcester County Trust Co. v. Riley No. 34 Argued November 15, 16, 1937 Decided December 6, 1937 302 U.S. 292 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. State taxing officials seeking through judicial proceedings to assess a succession tax on intangible property in pursuance of laws of their State, which impose the tax only if the deceased was domiciled therein at death, cannot constitutionally be interpleaded in a federal court with tax officials of another State likewise claiming the domicile and the right to tax, in order that the federal court may determine which State is in fact domiciliary and enjoin taxation in the other State, for the purpose of avoiding double taxation. P. 302 U. S. 296 . Such a suit is in effect against the State, forbidden by the Eleventh Amendment. A bill of interpleader, brou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson - 303 U.S. 77 (1938) U.S. Supreme Court Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 303 U.S. 77 (1938) Connecticut Gen. Life Insurance Co. v. Johnson No. 316 Argued January 14, 1938 Decided January 31, 1938 303 U.S. 77 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus 1. A corporation which is allowed to come into a State and there carry on its business may claim, as an individual may claim, the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment against a subsequent application to it of state law. P. 303 U. S. 79 . 2. A Connecticut corporation conducted part of its life insurance business in California under license from that State and also entered into contracts with other insurance corporations likewise licensed to do business in California, reinsuring them against loss on policies of life insurance effected by them in California and issued to residents there. These reinsurance contracts were entered into in Connecticut, where the premium...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Taylor v. Georgia - 315 U.S. 25 (1942) U.S. Supreme Court Taylor v. Georgia, 315 U.S. 25 (1942) Taylor v. Georgia No. 70 Argued December 15, 16, 1941 Decided January 12, 1942 315 U.S. 25 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA Syllabus 1. Peonage is a form of involuntary servitude, within the meaning of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the Act of Congress of March 2, 1867, is an appropriate implementation of that Amendment. P. 315 U. S. 29 . 2. A state statute making it a crime for any person to contract with another to perform services of any kind, and thereupon obtain in advance money or other thing of value, with intent not to perform such service, and providing further that failure to perform the service or to return the money, without good and sufficient cause, Page 315 U. S. 26 shall be deemed presumptive evidence of intent, at the time of making the contract, not to perform such service held violative of the Thirteenth Amendment and the Act of 1867. P. 315 U. S....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
International Shoe v. State of Washington - 326 U.S. 310 (1945) U.S. Supreme Court International Shoe v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) International Shoe v. State of Washington No. 107 Argued November 14, 1945 Decided December 3, 1945 326 U.S. 310 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON Syllabus Activities within a State of salesmen in the employ of a foreign corporation, exhibiting samples of merchandise and soliciting orders from prospective buyers to be accepted or rejected by the corporation at a point outside the State, were systematic and continuous, and resulted in a large volume of interstate business. A statute of the State requires employers to pay into the state unemployment compensation fund a specified percentage of the wages paid for the services of employees within the State. Held: 1. In view of 26 U.S.C. 1606(a) , providing that no person shall be relieved from compliance with a state law requiring payments to an unemployment fund on the gro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber - 329 U.S. 459 (1947) U.S. Supreme Court Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947) Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber No. 142 Argued November 18, 1946 Decided January 13, 1947 329 U.S. 459 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus Petitioner was convicted in a state court of murder and sentenced to be electrocuted. A warrant for his execution was duly issued. He was prepared for electrocution, placed in the electric chair and subjected to a shock which was intended to cause his death, but which failed to do so, presumably because of some mechanical difficulty. He was removed from the chair and returned to prison; but another warrant for his execution at a later date was issued. Held: 1. Assuming, but not deciding, that violations of the principles of the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment and the cruel and unusual punishment provision of the Eighth Amendment would violate the due process cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hurd v. Hodge - 334 U.S. 24 (1948) U.S. Supreme Court Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U.S. 24 (1948) Hurd v. Hodge No. 290 Argued January 15-16, 1948 Decided May 3, 1948 * 334 U.S. 24 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. Covenants incorporated in private conveyances of real estate in the District of Columbia which forbid the rental, lease, sale, transfer, or conveyance of the land to any Negro are valid, but their enforcement by the courts of the District of Columbia is prohibited by R.S. 1978 guaranteeing to all citizens of the United States equal rights to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. Pp. 334 U. S. 30 -34. (a) The District of Columbia is included in the phrase "every State and Territory," as used in R.S. 1978. P. 334 U. S. 31 . (b) Congress has the constitutional power to enact such legislation for the District of Columbia. P. 334 U. S. 31 . (c) The action toward which R.S....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Frank v. Maryland - 359 U.S. 360 (1959) U.S. Supreme Court Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360 (1959) Frank v. Maryland No. 278 Argued March 5, 1959 Decided May 4, 1959 359 U.S. 360 APPEAL FROM THE CRIMINAL COURT OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND Syllabus A Baltimore City health inspector seeking the source of a rat infestation discovered evidence of such an infestation in the rear of appellant's home, and, having no search warrant, requested appellant's permission to inspect his basement in the daytime. For refusing such permission, appellant was convicted and fined for a violation of 120 of Art. 12 of the Baltimore City Code, which provides that "Whenever the Commissioner of Health shall have cause to suspect that a nuisance exists in any house, cellar, or enclosure, he may demand entry therein in the day time, and if the owner or occupier shall refuse or delay to open the same and admit a free examination, he shall forfeit and pay for every such refusal the sum of Twenty Dollars." He...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Quantity of Books v. Kansas - 378 U.S. 205 (1964) U.S. Supreme Court Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205 (1964) A Quantity of Books v. Kansas No. 449 Argued April 1-2, 1964 Decided June 22, 1964 378 U.S. 205 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS Syllabus A state statute defined obscenity, proscribed distribution of obscene materials, and authorized their seizure before, and their destruction after, an adversary determination of their obscenity. Though the statute required the filing of a verified information by the county attorney or attorney general stating only that there "is [an] . . . obscene book . . . located within his county," the information filed by the attorney general went further and identified by title 59 allegedly obscene novels which were stated to have been published under a certain caption; copies of seven novels published under that caption were filed with the information; and an ex parte inquiry was held by the district judge during which he "sc...
Tag this Judgment!