Court : US Supreme Court
Balzac v. Porto Rico - 258 U.S. 298 (1922) U.S. Supreme Court Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) Balzac v. Porto Rico Nos. 178, 179 Argued March 20, 1922 Decided April 10, 1922 258 U.S. 298 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PORTO RICO Syllabus 1. The Act of January 28, 1915, c. 22, 38 Stat. 803, amending 246 of the Judicial Code, and providing that writs of error from this Court may be prosecuted to the supreme courts of Porto Rico and Hawaii in the same classes of cases as to the courts of last resort of the states under Jud.Code, 237, meant to assimilate the jurisdiction over those territorial courts to that over the state courts and is to be construed as embracing subsequent changes in 237 not obviously inapplicable, such as the amendments made by the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726. P. 258 U. S. 300 . 2. In prosecutions for criminal libel in a district court of Porto Rico, defendant demanded a jury under the Sixth Amendment, which was denied him u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United Mine Workers v. Coronado Coal Co. - 259 U.S. 344 (1922) U.S. Supreme Court United Mine Workers v. Coronado Coal Co., 259 U.S. 344 (1922) United Mine Workers of America v. Coronado Coal Company No. 31 Argued October 15, 1920 Restored to docket for reargument January 3, 1922 Reargued March 22, 23, 1922 Decided June 5, 1922 259 U.S. 344 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. In view of the Conformity Act and the law of Arkansas respecting consolidation of causes, held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting several allied corporations to be joined as plaintiffs in an action prosecuted by their receiver to recover triple damages under 7 of the Sherman Act for the destruction of their properties and business committed in an alleged conspiracy to restrain interstate commerce. P. 259 U. S. 382 . Page 259 U. S. 345 2. Unincorporated labor unions, such as the United Mine Workers of America, and its district...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Gitlow v. People - 268 U.S. 652 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Gitlow v. People, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) Gitlow v. People No.19 Argued April 12, 1923 Reargued November 23, 1923 Decided June 8, 1925 268 U.S. 652 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. Assumed, for the purposes of the case, that freedom of speech and of the press are among the personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States. P. 268 U. S. 666 . 2. Freedom of speech and of the press, as secured by the Constitution, is not an absolute right to speak or publish without responsibility whatever one may choose or an immunity for every possible use of language. P. 268 U. S. 666 . 3. That a State, in the exercise of its police power, may punish those who abuse this freedom by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to corrupt public morals, incite to crime or disturb the public peace, is not open to question. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Minnesota - 270 U.S. 181 (1926) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181 (1926) United States v. Minnesota No. 17, Original Argued January 4, 5, 1926 Decided March 1, 1926 270 U.S. 181 Syllabus 1. A suit against a state brought by the United States as guardian of tribal Indians to recover the title, or money proceeds, of lands alleged to have been patented to the state by the United States in breach of its trust obligations to the Indians is not a suit in which the Indians are the real parties in interest, but one in which the United States is really and directly interested, and is within the original jurisdiction of this Court. P. 270 U. S. 193 . 2. The six-year limitation (Act of March 3, 1891) is inapplicable where the United States sues to annul patents issued in alleged violation of rights of its Indian wards and of its obligations to them. P. 270 U. S. 195 . 3. State statutes of limitations do not apply to such suits. Id. 4. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Myers v. United States - 272 U.S. 52 (1926) U.S. Supreme Court Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1925) Myers v. United States No. 2 Argued December 5, 1923 Reargued April 13, 14, 1925 Decided October 25, 1926 272 U.S. 52 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. A postmaster who was removed from office petitioned the President and the Senate committee on Post Offices for a hearing on any charges filed; protested to the Post Office Department; and, Page 272 U. S. 53 three months before his four-year term expired, having pursued no other occupation and derived no compensation for other service in the interval, began suit in the Court of Claims for salary since removal. No notice of the removal, nor any nomination of a successor, had been sent in the meantime to the Senate whereby his case could have been brought before that body, and the commencement of suit was within a month after the ending of its last session preceding the expiration of the four years. Held that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Lambert v. Yellowley - 272 U.S. 581 (1926) U.S. Supreme Court Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581 (1926) Lambert v. Yellowley No. 47 Argued April 30, 1926 Decided November 29, 1926 272 U.S. 581 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. The provision of the National Prohibition Act that "Not more than a pint of spirituous liquor to he taken internally shall be Page 272 U. S. 582 prescribed for use by the same person within any period of ten days, and no prescription shall be filled more than once" is "appropriate legislation," within the meaning of the Eighteenth Amendment for enforcing its prohibition of the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes. P. 272 U. S. 589 . 2. Whatever the belief of a physician in the medicinal value of alcoholic liquor, his right to administer it to patients is subordinate to the powers granted to Congress by the Eighteenth Amendment. P. 272 U. S. 596 . 4 F.2d 9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Cline v. Frink Dairy Co. - 274 U.S. 445 (1927) U.S. Supreme Court Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., 274 U.S. 445 (1927) Cline v. Frink Dairy Company, 274 U.S. 445 No. 304 Argued April 29, 1927 Decided May 31, 1927 274 U.S. 445 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Syllabus 1. A federal court of equity may enjoin state criminal proceedings under a statute alleged to be unconstitutional when their prevention is essential to the safeguarding of rights of property, and when the circumstances are exceptional and the danger of irreparable loss is both great and immediate. P. 274 U. S. 451 . 2. The injunction cannot be supported, however, insofar as it embraces proceedings pending in the state criminal court which were instituted before the suit was begun. P. 274 U. S. 452 . 3. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes upon the states the obligation of so framing their criminal statutes that those to whom they are addressed may kn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
New York ex Rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman - 278 U.S. 63 (1928) U.S. Supreme Court New York ex Rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63 (1928) New York ex Rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman No. 2 Submitted October 11, 1927 Decided November 19, 1928 278 U.S. 63 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. Jurisdiction of this Court over an appellate case cannot be established by consent or acquiescence of parties. P. 278 U. S. 66 . 2. The validity of a state statute may be drawn in question under 237a of the Judicial Code, on the ground of its being repugnant to the federal Constitution, without the use of any particular form of words. If the record as a whole shows, either expressly or by clear intendment, that this claim of invalidity and ground therefor were brought to the attention of the state court with fair precision and in due time, the claim is to be regarded as having been adequately presented. P. 278 U. S. 67 . Page 278 U. S. 64 3. To show that such claim of invalidity ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Gilchrist v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co. - 279 U.S. 159 (1929) U.S. Supreme Court Gilchrist v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 279 U.S. 159 (1929) Gilchrist v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co. No. 159 Argued October 16, 17, 18, 1928 Reargued January 14, 15, 16, 1929 Decided April 8, 1929 279 U.S. 159 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus A New York street railway corporation, operating in the City of New York (1) subway lines belonging to and leased from the City, and which were part of the city streets, in connection with (2) elevated lines belonging to and leased from another corporation, and (3) extensions of such elevated lines, sought to increase the rate of fare, which had been fixed at five cents for all the lines by the leases and by the agreement under which the extensions had been constructed, and to that end proposed a seven-cent fare and applied to the Transit Commission of New York to sanction the ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Crowell v. Benson - 285 U.S. 22 (1932) U.S. Supreme Court Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 (1932) Crowell v. Benson No. 19 Argued October 20, 21, 1931 Decided February 23, 1932 * 285 U.S. 22 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. In virtue of its power to alter or revise the maritime law, Congress may provide that, where employees in maritime employment are disabled or die from accidental injuries arising out of or in the course of their employment upon the navigable waters of the United States, their employers shall pay reasonable compensation, without regard to fault as the cause of injury, and be thereby relieved from other liability. P. 285 U. S. 39 . 2. The Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, which provides a scheme for compensation in the class of cases above described, applicable if recovery "through workmen's compensation proceedings may not validly be provided by State law," upheld as to substantive provisions...
Tag this Judgment!