Court : US Supreme Court
DeLima v. Bidwell - 182 U.S. 1 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901) DeLima v. Bidwell No. 966 Argued January 8-11, 1901 Decided May 27, 1901 182 U.S. 1 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus By the Customs Administrative Act of 1890, an appeal is given from the decision of the collector "as to the rate and amount of the duties chargeable upon imported merchandise," to the Board of General Appraisers, who are authorized to decide "as to the construction of the law and the facts respecting the classification of such merchandise, and the rate of duties imposed thereon under such classification," but where the merchandise is alleged not to have been imported at all, but to have been brought from one domestic port to another, the Board of General Appraisers has no jurisdiction of the case, and an action for money had and received will lie against the collector to recover back duties assessed by h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Indiana Mfg. Co. v. Koehne - 188 U.S. 681 (1903) U.S. Supreme Court Indiana Mfg. Co. v. Koehne, 188 U.S. 681 (1903) Indiana Manufacturing Company v. Koehne No. 177 Argued October 21, 1902 Decided February 23, 1903 188 U.S. 681 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA Syllabus Certain taxes having been assessed against complainant, an Indiana corporation, pursuant to a law of Indiana upon the value of letters patent owned by it, an action was brought against the collector to enjoin the collection of such taxes, the appeal to equity being founded on the grounds: (1) That the assessment constituted a cloud upon title; (2) that there was no adequate remedy at law; (3) that a multiplicity of suits would be avoided; (4) that it would prevent irreparable injury to complainant. Held: (1) That, in the absence of any statute making the assessment upon shares a lien on the real estate and of any averment that the company owned any real estate, n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
TALAMINI v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY - 470 U.S. 1067 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court TALAMINI v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY , 470 U.S. 1067 (1985) 470 U.S. 1067 Florence TALAMINI, Administratrix of Estate of John A. Talamini v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY No. 84-18 Supreme Court of the United States March 25, 1985 The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. Justice STEVENS, with whom Justice BRENNAN, Justice MARSHALL, and Justice BLACKMUN join, concurring. Appellant filed a two-count complaint against appellee seeking to recover damages under two Pennsylvania statutes. [ Footnote 1 ] The Dis- Page 470 U.S. 1067 , 1068 trict Court granted a motion to dismiss Count II and appellant tried to appeal from that order under 28 U.S.C. 1291. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed the appeal, presumably because the District Court's dismissal of only one cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Coosaw Mining Co. v. South Carolina - 144 U.S. 550 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Coosaw Mining Co. v. South Carolina, 144 U.S. 550 (1892) Coosaw Mining Company v. South Carolina No. 1448 Argued March 14-15, 1892 Decided April 4, 1892 144 U.S. 550 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Syllabus The statute of the South Carolina, passed March 2H, 1876, acts of 1875-6, p. 198, is capable of being construed either, when taken by itself, as conferring upon the Coosaw Mining Company the exclusive right of Page 144 U. S. 551 digging, mining and removing phosphate rocks for an unlimited period, so long as it should comply with the terms of the statute, or, when taken in connection with the Act of March 1, 1870, 14 Gen.Stats.So.Car. 381, as conferring such a right only for "the full term of 21 years" named in the latter act, and as the interpretation should be adopted which is most favorable to the state, it is held that such exclusive ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD WALKER AND LORD COLLINS (with whom Lord Phillips and Lady Hale agree) Introduction 1. The first Star Wars film (later renamed "Star Wars Episode IV “ A New Hope" in order to provide for "prequels" as well as sequels) was released in the United Statesin 1977. It was an enormous commercial success. It won an Oscar for best costume design. This appeal is concerned with intellectual property rights in various artefacts made for use in the film. The most important of these was the Imperial Stormtrooper helmet to which the trial judge (Mann J) referred in his judgment ([2008] EWHC 1878 (Ch), [2009] FSR 103, paras [2] and [121]): "One of the most abiding images in the film was that of the Imperial Stormtroopers. These were soldiers clad in white armour, including a white helmet which left no part of the face uncovered. . . The purpose of the helmet was that it was to be worn as an item of costume in a film, to identify a character, but in addition to portray something about that ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Klein - 80 U.S. 128 (1871) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 128 128 (1871) United States v. Klein 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 Syllabus 1. The Act of March 12th, 1863 (12 Stat. at Large 820), to provide for the collection of abandoned and captured property in insurrectionary districts within the United States, does not confiscate, or in any case absolutely divest the property of the original owner, even though disloyal. By the seizure, the government constituted itself a trustee for those who were entitled, or whom it should thereafter recognize as entitled. 2. By virtue of the act of 17th July, 1862, authorizing the President to offer pardon on such conditions as he might think advisable, and the proclamation of 8th December, 1863, which promised a restoration of all rights Page 80 U. S. 129 of property, except as to slaves, on condition that the prescribed oath be taken and kept inviolate, the persons who had faithfully accepted the con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Heckler v. Chaney - 470 U.S. 821 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) Heckler v. Chaney No. 83-1878 Argued December 3, 1984 Decided March 20, 1985 470 U.S. 821 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent prison inmates were convicted of capital offenses and sentenced to death by lethal injection of drugs. They petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), alleging that use of the drugs for such a purpose violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), and requesting that the FDA take various enforcement actions to prevent those violations. The FDA refused the request. Respondents then brought an action in Federal District Court against petitioner Secretary of Health and Human Services, making the same claim and seeking the same enforcement actions. The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioner, holding that nothing in the FDCA indicated an intent to circumsc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Osborn v. Haley - 05-593 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 OSBORN V. HALEY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OSBORN v . HALEY etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 05593.Argued October 30, 2006Decided January 22, 2007 The federal statute commonly known as the Westfall Act accords federal employees absolute immunity from tort claims arising out of acts undertaken in the course of their official duties, 28 U. S.C. 2679(b)(1), and empowers the Attorney General to certify that a federal employee sued for wrongful or negligent conduct was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose, 2679(d)(1), (2). Upon such certification, the United States is substituted as defendant in place of the employee, and the action is thereafter governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act. If the action commenced in state court, the Westfall Act calls for its removal to a federal district court, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Torres v. Puerto Rico - 442 U.S. 465 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465 (1979) Torres v. Puerto Rico No. 77-1609 Argued January 10, 1979 Decided June 18, 1979 442 U.S. 465 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO Syllabus When appellant arrived at the airport in San Juan, Puerto Rico, police officers, without a warrant or probable cause to suspect that appellant was carrying contraband, searched his baggage pursuant to a Puerto Rico statute authorizing the police to search the luggage of any person arriving in Puerto Rico from the United States. The search revealed marihuana, and appellant was subsequently charged with and convicted of a drug violation under Puerto Rico law. On appeal, he contended that the search violated the federal constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches; the Puerto Rico Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Held: 1. The constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment apply to Puerto Rico. Both Congre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD HOPE 1. The Scottish Parliament was established by section 1 of the Scotland Act 1998. It was opened on 1 July 1999. Section 29(1) of the Act provides: "An Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law so far as any provision of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament." 2. This provision lies at the heart of the scheme of devolution to which the Act gives effect. Section 29 has to be read together with Schedule 4 which protects certain enactments from modification, and then with section 30 and Schedule 5 which defines reserved matters. These are matters reserved to the UK Parliament, and which are therefore excluded from the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. The area of competence that is identified by this group of provisions forms the basis for a series of sections that are designed to ensure that the Scottish Parliament confines itself to the defined areas of competence: section 31 (scrutiny of Bills before introduction), section 32 (the re...
Tag this Judgment!