Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-13-1960
..... , the parties have in this court commendably narrowed their contentions to the scope of the only relevant inquiry. the points of contention may be sharpened by first observing what is not in contest. discretion of the district judges concerned is not involved. propriety of the remedy of mandamus is not assailed. no claim is made ..... 1400(b), which provides: "(b) any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." see stonite products co. v. melvin lloyd co., 315 u. s. 561 ; fourco glass co. ..... of such a provision, see baltimore & ohio r. co. v. kepner, . . . 314 u. s. 44 , . . . which was prosecuted under the federal employer's liability act in new york, although the accident occurred and the employee resided in ohio. the new subsection requires the court to determine that the transfer is necessary for convenience of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-28-1960
..... this point. if the search here were of the sort the fourth amendment contemplated, there would be no need for the elaborate, if somewhat pointless, inquiry the court makes into the "good faith" of the arrest. once it is established that a simple executive arrest of one as a deportable alien gives ..... we conclude, therefore, that government officers who effect a deportation arrest have a right of incidental search analogous to the search permitted criminal law enforcement officers. judged by the prevailing doctrine, the search of petitioner's hotel room was justified. its physical scope, being confined to the petitioner's room and the ..... their admissibility as evidence. affirmed. * "1. whether, under the laws and constitution of the united states (a) the administrative warrant of the new york acting district director of the immigration and naturalization service was validly issued, (b) such administrative warrant constituted a valid basis for arresting petitioner or taking him into custody, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-18-1960
..... s. 397 -398. the applicability of this principle is not to be denied either because the court there considered a wartime statute or because, having set forth the governing inquiry, it went on to find, in the language of the statute, affirmative confirmation of the power to order reimbursement. id. at 328 u. s. 399 . when ..... 3), for instigating the first action, issued an injunction against respondents from violating that section, and ordered respondents to offer reinstatement to those employees. but the district judge doubted that he had jurisdiction under 17 to award reparations to the employees for their lost wages, and held that, even if he did have jurisdiction to do ..... right to sue for back pay lost by a discriminatory discharge is not explicit in the act. we do not agree that the case is distinguishable. . . ." 177 f.2d at 138. and, in his separate opinion concurring only in the result, judge learned hand's opening sentence was: "i agree that the decision below followed from what .....
Tag this Judgment!