Court : US Supreme Court
Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector - 301 U.S. 548 (1937) U.S. Supreme Court Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548 (1937) Steward Machine Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue No. 837 Argued April 8, 9, 1937 Decided May 24, 1937 301 U.S. 548 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. The tax imposed by Title IX of the Social Security Act of August 14, 1935, upon the employer of labor, described as "an excise tax with respect to having individuals in his employ," and which is measured by prescribed percentages of the total wages payable by the employer during the calendar year, is either an "excise," a "duty," or an "impost," within the intent of Art. I, Sec. 8, of the Constitution, and complies with the requirement of uniformity throughout the United States. Pp. 301 U. S. 578 , 301 U. S. 583 . 2. The enjoyment of common rights, such as the right to employ labor, may constitutionally be taxed. P. 301 U. S. 578 . Such taxation was pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Scales v. United States - 367 U.S. 203 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203 (1961) Scales v. United States No. 1 Argued April 29, 1959 Reargued October 10, 1960 Decided June 5, 1961 367 U.S. 203 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner was convicted of violating the so-called membership clause of the Smith Act, which makes a felony the acquisition or holding of membership in any organization which advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force or violence, knowing the purposes thereof. The indictment charged that from January, 1946, to the date of its filing in 1954, the Communist Party of the United States was such an organization, and that, throughout that period, petitioner was a member thereof with knowledge of the Party's illegal purpose and a specific intent to accomplish overthrow of the Government "as speedily as circumstances would permit." The jury was instructe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
McGowan v. Maryland - 366 U.S. 420 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961) McGowan v. Maryland No. 8 Argued December 8, 1960 Decided May 29, 1961 366 U.S. 420 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND Syllabus Appellants, employees of a large department store on a highway in Anne Arundel County, Md., were convicted and fined in a Maryland State Court for selling on Sunday a loose-leaf binder, a can of floor wax, a stapler, staples and a toy, in violation of Md.Ann.Code, Art. 27, 521, which generally prohibits the sale on Sunday of all merchandise except the retail sale of tobacco products, confectioneries, milk, bread, fruit, gasoline, oils, greases, drugs, medicines, newspapers and periodicals. Recent amendments now except from the prohibition the retail sale in Anne Arundel County of all foodstuffs, automobile and boating accessories, flowers, toilet goods, hospital supplies and souvenirs, and exempt entirely any retail establishment in that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
FW/PBS v. City of Dallas - 493 U.S. 215 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court FW/PBS v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990) FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas Nos. 87-2012, 87-2051 and 88-49 Argued Oct. 4, 1989 Decided Jan. 8, 1990 493 U.S. 215 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent City of Dallas adopted a comprehensive ordinance regulating "sexually oriented businesses," which are defined to include "adult" arcades, bookstores, video stores, cabarets, motels, and theaters, as well as escort agencies, nude model studios, and sexual encounter centers. Among other things, the ordinance requires that such businesses be licensed, and includes civil disability provisions prohibiting certain individuals from obtaining licenses. Three groups of individuals and businesses involved in the adult entertainment industry filed separate suits challenging the ordinance on numerous grounds and seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The District Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey - 505 U.S. 833 (1992) OCTOBER TERM, 1991 Syllabus PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA ET AL. v. CASEY, GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 91-744. Argued April 22, 1992-Decided June 29, 1992* At issue are five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982: 3205, which requires that a woman seeking an abortion give her informed consent prior to the procedure, and specifies that she be provided with certain information at least 24 hours before the abortion is performed; 3206, which mandates the informed consent of one parent for a minor to obtain an abortion, but provides a judicial bypass procedure; 3209, which commands that, unless certain exceptions apply, a married woman seeking an abortion must sign a statement indicating that she has notified her husband; 3203, which defines a "medical emergency" that will excuse compliance w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ogden v. Saunders - 25 U.S. 213 (1827) U.S. Supreme Court Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 213 213 (1827) Ogden v. Saunders 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 213 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus A bankrupt or insolvent law of any state which discharges both the person of the debtor and his future acquisitions of property is not "a law impairing the obligation of contracts" so far as respects debts contracted subsequent to the passage of such law in those cases where the contract was made between citizens of the state under whose laws the discharge was obtained and in whose courts the discharge may be pleaded. The power given to the United States by the Constitution, "to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States" is not exclusive of the right of the states to legislate on the same subject except when the power is actually in exercise by Congress and the laws of the state are in conflict with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Company - 50 U.S. 647 (1850) U.S. Supreme Court Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Company, 50 U.S. 9 How. 647 647 (1850) Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company 50 U.S. (9 How.) 647 ORIGINAL Syllabus In a cause depending in this Court in the exercise of original jurisdiction, wherein the State of Pennsylvania complained of the erection of a bridge across the Ohio River at Wheeling, the cause was referred to a commissioner for the purpose of taking further proof, with instructions to report to the Court by the first day of the next stated term. This case was transferred to this Court by an order of MR. JUSTICE GRIER, one of the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, under the following circumstances. On 16 August, 1849, at the courtroom of the Circuit Court of the United States in the City of Philadelphia, before MR. JUSTICE GRIER, one of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Holden v. Hardy - 169 U.S. 366 (1898) U.S. Supreme Court Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 (1898) Holden v. Hardy No. 261, 264 Argued October 21, 1897 Decided February 28, 1898 169 U.S. 366 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH Syllabus The provisions in the act of March 30, 1896, c. 72, of Utah, providing that "The period of employment of workingmen in all underground mines or workings shall be eight hours per day, except in cases of emergency where life or property is in imminent danger;" that "The period of employment of workingmen in smelters and all other institutions for the reduction or refining of ores or metals shall be eight hours per day, except in cases of emergency where life or property is in imminent danger;" and that "Any person, body corporate, agent, manager or employer who shall violate any of the provisions of sections one and two of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor," are a valid exercise of the police power of the State, and do not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS etal. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 11393.Argued March 26, 27, 28, 2012Decided June 28, 2012[ 1 ] In 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in order to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care. One key provision is the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to maintain minimum essential healt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Sparf and Hansen v. United States - 156 U.S. 51 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895) Sparf and Hansen v. United States No. 613 Submitted March 5, 1894 Decided January 21, 1895 156 U.S. 51 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus If one of two persons accused of having together committed the crime of murder makes a voluntary confession in the presence of the other under such circumstances that he would naturally have contradicted it if he did not assent, the confession is admissible in evidence against both. If two persons are indicted and tried jointly for murder, declarations of one made after the killing and in the absence of the other tending to prove the guilt of both are admissible in evidence against the one making the declarations, but not against the other. An objection to the admissibility of such evidence, made at the trial in the name of both defendants, on the ge...
Tag this Judgment!