Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Wood - 299 U.S. 123 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123 (1936) United States v. Wood No. 34 Argued October 20, 1936 Decided December 7, 1936 299 U.S. 123 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. Bias of a prospective juror may be actual or implied -- i.e., bias in fact or bias conclusively presumed as a matter of law. P. 299 U. S. 133 . 2. The Act of August 22, 1935, concerning qualifications of jurors in the District of Columbia, leaves all prospective jurors subject to examination and rejection for actual bias. Id. 3. In dealing with an employee of the Government, summoned to jury service in a criminal case, the court should be solicitous to discover whether, in view of the nature or circumstances of his employment, or of the relation of his particular governmental activity to the matters involved in the prosecution, he has actual bias. P 299 U. S. 134 . Page 299 U. S. 12...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Vandalia R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n - 242 U.S. 255 (1916) U.S. Supreme Court Vandalia R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 242 U.S. 255 (1916) Vandalia Railroad Company v. Public Service Commission of Indiana No. 81 Submitted November 6, 1916 Decided December 11, 1916 242 U.S. 255 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF INDIANA Syllabus Prior to the Act of March 4, 1915, c. 169, 38 Stat. 1192, and after the Act of February 17, 1911, c. 103, 36 Stat. 913, the state police power extended to the regulation of the character of headlights used on Page 242 U. S. 256 locomotives employed in interstate commerce. Atlantic Coast Line v. Georgia, 234 U. S. 280 . A judgment which correctly refused injunctive relief against such state regulation may not be attacked on writ of error as a judgment infringing federal rights (Judicial Code, 237) upon the ground that the same field of regulation has since been occupied by tho federal government under an act of Congress enacted af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Steamship Company v. Joliffe - 69 U.S. 450 (1864) U.S. Supreme Court Steamship Company v. Joliffe, 69 U.S. 2 Wall. 450 450 (1864) Steamship Company v. Joliffe 69 U.S. (2 Wall.) 450 ERROR TO THE COUNTY COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Syllabus 1. When a right has arisen upon a contract or a transaction in the nature of a contract authorized by statute and has been so far perfected that nothing remains to be done by the party asserting it, the repeal of the statute does not affect it or an action for its enforcement. It has become a vested right, which stands independent of the statute. Ex. gr., where a pilot, licensed under a statute, had tendered his services to pilot a vessel out of port and such services were refused, his claim to the half-pilotage fees, allowed by the statute in such cases, became perfect, and the subsequent repeal of the statute does not affect a judgment rendered in an action brought to recover the claim, or the jurisdiction of this Court t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Peugh v. United States 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 PEUGH v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit No. 1262.Argued February 26, 2013Decided June 10, 2013 Petitioner Peugh was convicted of five counts of bank fraud for conduct that occurred in 1999 and 2000. At sentencing, he argued that the Ex Post Facto Clause required that he be sentenced under the 1998 version of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of his offenses rather than under the 2009 version in effect at the time of sentencing. Under the 1998 Guidelines, Peughs sentencing range ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD WALKER (with whom Lord Mance, Lord Sumption and Lord Carnwath agree) Introduction 1. Sections (1) and (2) of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("the 1986 Act") provide as follows: "(1) A company is deemed unable to pay its debts “ (a) [non-compliance with a statutory demand for a debt exceeding 750 presently due] (b) to (d) [unsatisfied execution on judgment debt in terms appropriate to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively] (e) if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due. (2) A company is also deemed unable to pay its debts if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the value of the company's assets is less than the amount of its liabilities, taking into account its contingent and prospective liabilities." A company in the situation described in subsection (1)(e) is often said to be "cash-flow" insolvent. A company in the situation described in subsection (2) is often s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 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 KIRTSAENG, dba BLUECHRISTINE99 v. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 11697.Argued October 29, 2012Decided March 19, 2013 The exclusive rights that a copyright owner has to distribute copies ... of [a] copyrighted work, 17 U.S.C. 106(3), are qualified by the application of several limitations set out in 107 through 122, including the first sale doctrine, which provides that the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title ... is entitled, with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Kloeckner v. Solis 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 KLOECKNER v. SOLIS, SECRETARY OF LABOR certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit No. 11184.Argued October 2, 2012Decided December 10, 2012 The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) permits a federal employee subjected to a particularly serious personnel action such as a discharge or demotion to appeal her agencys decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board). Such an appeal may allege that the agency had insufficient cause for taking the action under the CSRA itself; but the appeal may also or instead charge th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Alvarez 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 UNITED STATES v. ALVAREZ certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 11210.Argued February 22, 2012Decided June 28, 2012 The Stolen Valor Act makes it a crime to falsely claim receipt of military decorations or medals and provides an enhanced penalty if the Congressional Medal of Honor is involved. 18 U.S.C. 704 (b), (c). Respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of falsely claiming that he had received the Medal of Honor, but reserved his right to appeal his claim that the Act is unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit reversed, ...
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
Southern Union Co. v. United States 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 SOUTHERN UNION CO. v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the first circuit No. 1194.Argued March 19, 2012Decided June 21, 2012 Petitioner Southern Union Company was convicted by a jury in federal court on one count of violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) for having knowingly stored liquid mercury without a permit at a subsidiarys facility on or about September 19, 2002 to October 19, 2004. Violations of the RCRA are punishable by, inter alia, a fine of not more than $50,000 for ea...
Tag this Judgment!