Court : US Supreme Court
..... present purposes, with that, in the powell case. the petitioners, 1,278 in number, were handlers, carriers, and processors of explosives, who claimed additional compensation under the fair labor standards act for approximately 35 minutes before, and 30 minutes after, their scheduled work in the plant. the respondent answered and moved for summary ..... was for transportation outside of the state and for use by the united states in the prosecution of war, but not for sale or exchange. section 3(b) of the act contains the following definition of "commerce": "(b) 'commerce' means trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several states or from ..... is intended to accomplish is to protect ultimate consumers, other than producers, manufacturers, or processors of the goods in question from the 'hot goods' provision of section 15(a)(1). this seems clear from the language of the statute. . . . but congress clearly did not intend to permit an employer to avoid the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... legislation then enacted led to the passage, in 1908, of the transportation of explosives act, [ footnote 9 ] which was later extended to cover inflammables. [ footnote 10 ] in accordance with that act, the commission, in the same year, issued regulations applicable to railroads. in 1934, the commission exercised its authority under the act to promulgate regulations governing moor trucks, including the regulation here in question ..... or through congested thoroughfares, places where crowds are assembled, street car tracks, tunnels, viaducts and dangerous crossings. so far as practicable, this shall be accomplished by prearrangement of routes." the section was amended to its present form in 1942. 7 fed.reg. 2869. [ footnote 13 ] compare united states v. petrillo, 332 u. s. 1 , 332 u. s. 7 (1947); miller v .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... favor n.j., johnsville, pa. ules on army and navy aircraft. (congressional of new president. investigation suggested labor difficulties as well, due to employment of enemy aliens.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- triumph explosives, inc., mary- 10/12/42 2/28/43 9254. none. overpayments (presumably bribes) of $1,400,000 to new board of directors and officers; indictments against land and delaware ..... iv) 2101-2123, and see exec.order no. 10233, 16 fed.reg. 3503. [ footnote 5/6 ] congress has authorized other types of seizure under conditions not present here. section 201 of the defense production act authorizes the president to acquire specific "real property, including facilities, temporary use thereof, or other interest therein . . . " by condemnation. 64 stat. 799, as amended, 65 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... prosecute a man who refused to follow the letter of the law to procure a license to "run businesses," "erect structures," "purchase firearms," "store explosives," or, i may add, to run a pawnshop. but the first amendment affords freedom of speech a special protection; i believe it prohibits a state ..... we held that a statute authorizing this previous restraint was unconstitutional even though an error might be corrected after trial. in the thomas case, the section of the texas act was held prohibitory of labor speeches anywhere on private or public property without registration. this made 5 unconstitutional. the statutes were as though they did ..... is exulcerating and costly. but to allow applicants to proceed without the required permits to run businesses, erect structures, purchase firearms, transport or store explosives or inflammatory products, hold public meetings without prior safety arrangements or take other unauthorized action is apt to cause breaches of the peace or create public .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit syllabus in this action against the united states under the tort claims act to recover damages for a death resulting from the disastrous explosion at texas city, tex., of ammonium nitrate fertilizer produced at the instance, according to the specifications, and under the control ..... page 346 u. s. 28 business, [ footnote 17 ] it was not contemplated that the government should be subject to liability arising from acts of a governmental nature or function. [ footnote 18 ] section 2680(a) draws this distinction. uppermost in the collective mind of congress were the ordinary common law torts. [ footnote 19 ] of these, ..... negligence was the proximate cause of such fires and explosions and injuries of which plaintiffs complain." [ footnote 2/11 ] 28 u.s.c. 2680: "the provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall not apply to --" "(a) any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the government, exercising .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... upheld against a charge of vagueness. e.g., boyce motor lines v. united states, 342 u. s. 337 (regulation providing that drivers of motor vehicles carrying explosives "shall avoid, so far as practicable, and, where feasible, by prearrangement of routes, driving into or through congested thoroughfares, places where crowds are assembled, street car ..... united states." "(b) to influence, directly or indirectly, the passage or defeat of any legislation by the congress of the united states." this section modifies the substantive provisions of the act, including 305 and 308. in other words, unless a "person" falls within the category established by 307, the disclosure requirements of 305 and ..... construction of the statute, the court is under a duty to give the statute that construction. p. 347 u. s. 618 . (c) section 307 limits the coverage of the act to those "persons" (except specified political committees) who solicit, collect, or receive contributions of money or other thing of value, and then .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... reed delivered the opinion of the court. petitioner was employed by respondent to assist with dredging operations being conducted by respondent in a slough dug to by-pass a rocky section of the mississippi page 352 u. s. 371 river. his work was that of a handyman; it included the carrying and storing of supplies, and the general maintenance of ..... a dredge. he was injured by the explosion of a coal stove while placing signal lanterns from the dredge in a shed on the neighboring bank. he filed this suit under the jones ..... vessels, to be sure, but [whose] service was that of laborers, of the sort performed by longshoremen and harbor workers." congress intended to remove from the coverage of the jones act "all those various sorts of longshoremen and harbor workers who were performing labor on a vessel." south chicago coal & dock co. v. bassett, 309 u. s. 251 , 309 u. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... simply to prevent collisions, rather than to guard against such unforeseeable occurrences as the page 355 u. s. 449 explosion in this case. [ footnote 2/2 ] this is confirmed by the tenor of the section of the statute under which the regulation issued: "the commandant of the united states coast guard shall establish such ..... u. s. 466 -467; urie v. thompson, supra, at 337 u. s. 190 -191. in keeping with this statement of purpose, two sections of the safety appliance act expressly refer to the civil liability of employers to injured employees by abrogating the common law defense of assumption of risk and by preserving such civil liability over ..... that injuries caused by violation of any statute are to be treated specially. in formulating the rule that violation of the safety appliance and boiler inspection acts creates liability for resulting injuries without proof of negligence, the court relied on judicially evolved principles designed to carry out the general congressional purpose of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... emergency in this state," and that "the employment of members of subversive groups and organizations by government presents a grave peril to the national security." section 5 of the act provides that the appointing officer may transfer or suspend a person occupying a position within a "security agency" of the state after a finding, based ..... are prepared to infiltrate nor only our public services, but our civilian employments as well. in the event of war we may have to anticipate black tom explosions on every waterfront, poison in our water systems, and sand in all important industrial machines. but the time has not come when we have to abandon ..... dangerous persons might infiltrate the shipping rooms of factories where the munitions are being packed for shipment to korea with opportunities for inserting bombs appropriately timed for explosion on board ship. all persons who are in factories making munitions and material for the armed forces have opportunities for sabotage, and the same may be .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... certification requirements and motor carrier regulations of the interstate commerce commission and under 18 u.s.c. 835 for "knowingly" violating regulations for the safe transportation in interstate commerce of explosives and other dangerous articles. pp. 358 u. s. 121 -127. (a) the words "knowingly and willfully" in 222(a) and the word "knowingly" in 835 ..... .c. 835, which makes it criminal knowingly to violate interstate page 358 u. s. 122 commerce commission regulations for the safe transportation in interstate commerce of "explosives and other dangerous articles." appellee a & p trucking company was also charged with numerous violations of 49 u.s.c. 322(a) ( 222(a) of the motor ..... it has done so in 322(a), for, as we have seen, "person" in that section is expressly defined in the motor carrier act to include partnerships. we think it likewise has done so in 835, since we find nothing in that section which would justify our not applying to the word "whoever" the definition given it in 1 .....
Tag this Judgment!