Court : US Supreme Court
Detrola Radio & Television Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp. - 313 U.S. 259 (1941) U.S. Supreme Court Detrola Radio & Television Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 313 U.S. 259 (1941) Detrola Radio & Television Corp. v. Hazeltine Corporation No. 666 Argued April 7, 1941 Decided May 12, 1941 313 U.S. 259 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Wheeler reissue patent, No.19,744, Claims 1-7, inclusive, and 9-13, inclusive, relating to amplifiers in modulated current-carrying signaling systems, wherein the limit of amplification is automatically maintained substantially at a predetermined level held invalid for want of invention over the prior art. P. 313 U. S. 268 . The alleged invention, as upheld by the court below, was of improved means for obtaining automatic amplification control by the combination in a radio receiver of a diode detector with a high resistance connected between the anode of the detector and the cathode of the amplifying tube, and a di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Brown v. Gerdes - 321 U.S. 178 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court Brown v. Gerdes, 321 U.S. 178 (1944) Brown v. Gerdes No. 183 Argued January 4, 1944 Decided February 7, 1944 321 U.S. 178 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. In a reorganization proceeding under Ch. X of the Bankruptcy Act, the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the amount which shall be allowed out of the bankrupt estate for services of attorneys who, by authority of the bankruptcy court, represented the bankrupt estate in litigation in a state court. P. 321 U. S. 180 . 2. The petition for reorganization in this case having been approved subsequently to the effective date of Ch. X, the result is unaffected Page 321 U. S. 179 by the fact that the petition was filed and the main suit in the State court litigation was instituted prior to that date. P. 321 U. S. 184 . 3. Nor is the result affected by the fact that the litigation in the state court was within the exclusi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Falbo v. United States - 320 U.S. 549 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549 (1944) Falbo v. United States No. 73 Argued November 19, 1943 Decided January 3, 1944 320 U.S. 549 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. In a criminal prosecution under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 for willful failure to obey a local board's order to report for assignment to work of national importance, it is no defense that the registrant's classification as a conscientious objector, rather than as a minister, was erroneous. P. 320 U. S. 554 . 2. Assuming a constitutional requirement that judicial review be available to test the validity of the board's classification, Congress was not required to provide for such renew prior to final acceptance of the registrant for service. P. 320 U. S. 554 . 135 F.2d 464 affirmed. Certiorari, 320 U.S. 209, to review the affirmance of a conviction for violation of the Selectiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Gibson v. United States - 329 U.S. 338 (1946) U.S. Supreme Court Gibson v. United States, 329 U.S. 338 (1946) Gibson v. United States No. 23 Argued January 2, 3, 1946 Reargued October 23, 1946 Decided December 23, 1946 * 329 U.S. 338 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Having been denied classification as a minister of religion under the Selective Training and Service Act, classified as a conscientious objector, and ordered to report to a civilian camp for work of national importance, and having exhausted his administrative remedies up to that point, Dodez refused to go to camp. The regulations then applicable provided for a pre-induction physical examination before issuance of the order to report for induction, but not after reporting to camp, so that there was no possibility that he would be rejected after reporting to camp. He was indicted for violating 11 of the Act, and defended on the ground that his classification was inva...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp. - 328 U.S. 275 (1946) U.S. Supreme Court Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U.S. 275 (1946) Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp. No. 970 Argued May 6, 1946 Decided May 27, 1946 328 U.S. 275 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus After serving in the Army and receiving an honorable discharge, petitioner was reinstated in his former position pursuant to 8(a) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. Subsequently, when there was not enough work to keep all employees busy, he was laid off temporarily on nine days while nonveterans with higher shop seniorities were permitted to work, but he was given work when enough became available. He sued for a declaratory judgment as to his rights under the Act, and to obtain compensation for the days that he was laid off. The union intervened and alleged in its answer that the employer's action was in accordance with the provision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
McGrath v. Kristensen - 340 U.S. 162 (1950) U.S. Supreme Court McGrath v. Kristensen, 340 U.S. 162 (1950) McGrath v. Kristensen No. 34 Argued October 19-20, 1950 Decided December 11, 1950 340 U.S. 162 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. A justiciable question under Article III of the Constitution is presented by the suit of an alien for a judgment declaring that, in passing on his application for suspension of deportation under 19(c) of the Immigration Act, the Attorney General and other immigration and naturalization officials must act on the assumption that he is eligible for naturalization. Pp. 340 U. S. 167 -169. (a) A different result is not required by the provision of 19(c) that suspensions of deportation for more than six months must be submitted to Congress for approval, since the Attorney General is given final power to suspend deportation for at least six months. Chicago & Southern Air Lines v. W...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Yellow Cab Co. - 340 U.S. 543 (1951) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 340 U.S. 543 (1951) United States v. Yellow Cab Co. Argued December 6, 1950 Decided February 26, 1951 * 340 U.S. 543 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus The Federal Tort Claims Act empowers a United States District Court to require the United States to be impleaded as a third-party defendant and to answer the claim of a joint tortfeasor for contribution as if the United States were a private individual. Pp. 340 U. S. 544 -557. 1. The Government has consented to be sued for contribution claimed by a joint tortfeasor in the circumstances of these cases. Pp. 340 U. S. 546 -552. 2. The Federal Tort Claims Act carries the Government's consent to be sued for contribution claimed by a joint tortfeasor not only in a separate proceeding, but also as a third-part defendant. Pp. 340 U. S. 552 -557. 3. A different result is not r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Calmar Steamship Corp. v. United States - 345 U.S. 446 (1953) U.S. Supreme Court Calmar Steamship Corp. v. United States, 345 U.S. 446 (1953) Calmar Steamship Corp. v. United States No. 262 Argued January 15, 1953 Decided April 27, 1953 345 U.S. 446 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Under the Suits in Admiralty Act, which authorizes the filing against the United States in the District Courts of libels in personam concerning vessels "operated by or for the United States" and "employed as merchant vessels," a privately owned vessel operated for hire for the United States is "employed as a merchant vessel" although the vessel be engaged on a war mission. Pp. 345 U. S. 446 -456. 197 F.2d 795, judgment vacated and cause remanded. The District Court assumed jurisdiction of a libel under the Suits in Admiralty Act and awarded a decree against the United States on part of the libellant's claim. 103 F.Supp. 243. The Court of Appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Harriss - 347 U.S. 612 (1954) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612 (1954) United States v. Harriss No. 32 Argued October 19, 1953 Decided June 7, 1954 347 U.S. 612 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. As here construed, 305, 307 and 308 of the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act are not too vague and indefinite to meet the requirements of due process. Pp. 347 U. S. 617 -624. (a) If the general class of offenses to which a statute is directed is plainly within its terms, the statute will not be struck down as vague, even though marginal cases could be put where doubts might arise. P. 347 U. S. 618 . (b) If this general class of offenses can be made constitutionally definite by a reasonable 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 specifi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Mitchell v. Lublin, McGaughy & Assocs. - 358 U.S. 207 (1959) U.S. Supreme Court Mitchell v. Lublin, McGaughy & Assocs., 358 U.S. 207 (1959) Mitchell v. Lublin, McGaughy & Associates No. 37 Argued October 21, 1958 Decided January 12, 1959 358 U.S. 207 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Secretary of Labor brought this action under 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act to restrain respondent from violating the recordkeeping and overtime provisions of the Act. Respondent is a firm of architects and engineers which designs public, industrial, and residential projects and prepares plans and specifications for them. It has offices in Norfolk, Va., and Washington, D.C., and employs 65 or 70 person. Many of its projects and clients are located outside of Virginia and the District of Columbia. Its fieldmen often travel across state lines, and its plans and specifications often are sent across state lines. Its draftsmen, fieldmen, clerks...
Tag this Judgment!