Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-22-1944
Arenas v. United States - 322 U.S. 419 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court Arenas v. United States, 322 U.S. 419 (1944) Arenas v. United States No. 463 Argued March 6, 7, 1944 Decided May 22, 1944 322 U.S. 419 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Upon the record in this case, which was a suit brought against the United States under the Act of August 15, 1894, by an Indian claiming, under the Mission Indian Act of 1891, as amended by the Act of March 2, 1917, a right to a trust patent to an allotment of lands which had long been in his possession and which had been considerably improved by him, but which allotment had not been Page 322 U. S. 420 finally approved by the Secretary of the Interior, the Government was not entitled to summary judgment, but should be required to answer, and the cause should proceed to trial, findings, and judgment. P. 322 U. S. 433 . 137 F.2d 199 reversed. Certiorari, 320 U.S. 733, to review the affirmance of a sum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-28-1944
Stark v. Wickard - 321 U.S. 288 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288 (1944) Stark v. Wickard No. 211 Argued January 14, 1944 Decided February 28, 1944 321 U.S. 288 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, the Secretary of Agriculture promulgated an order regulating the marketing of milk in the Greater Boston area. The order provided for fixing minimum prices to be paid to producers, and the prescribed formula authorized a deduction for certain payments to cooperatives. Producers, claiming that the Secretary, by the provisions for payments to cooperatives, was unlawfully diverting funds which belonged to producers, brought suit in the federal district court to enjoin the Secretary from carrying out the challenged provisions of the order. Held, that the producers had standing to sue. Pp. 321 U. S. 289 , 321 U. S. 305 . 2. Although a judicial exam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-05-1944
Addison v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc. - 322 U.S. 607 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court Addison v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc., 322 U.S. 607 (1944) Addison v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc. No. 217 Argued January 10, 1944 Decided June 5, 1944 322 U.S. 607 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Section 13(a)(10) of the Fair Labor Standards Act exempts from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Act persons employed, "within the area of production (as defined by the Administrator)" in canning agricultural commodities for market. The Administrator's definition of "area of production" brought within the exemption employees of canneries which obtained "all" of their farm products from within ten miles and had not more than seven employees. Held: (1) Judicial construction of "all" in the Administrator's definition as meaning "substantially all" was not permissible. P. 322 U. S. 610 . (2) The Administrator's discrimination bet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-12-1944
Baumgartner v. United States - 322 U.S. 665 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665 (1944) Baumgartner v. United States No. 493 Argued April 26, 1944 Decided June 12, 1944 322 U.S. 665 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. The rule that concurrent findings of to lower court are persuasive in support of their judgments does not relieve this Court of the task of examining the foundation of findings in particular cases. P. 322 U. S. 670 . 2. In a denaturalization proceeding involving issues of belief or fraud, the Government's proof must be clear, unequivocal, and convincing. P. 322 U. S. 670 . 3. The conclusion of the two lower courts that that exacting standard of proof has, on the whole record, been satisfied cannot be deemed an unreviewable "finding of fact." P. 322 U. S. 671 . 4. In a suit brought by the United States under 338 of the Nationality Act of 1940 to set aside a naturalization decree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-10-1944
United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co. - 321 U.S. 707 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 321 U.S. 707 (1944) United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co. Argued December 8, 1943 Decided April 10, 1944 * 321 U.S. 707 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. The provision of the judgment dismissing, as to certain of the defendants, the complaint in a suit to restrain alleged violations of the Sherman Act is here affirmed by an equally divided Court. P. 321 U. S. 719 . 2. A distributor of a trademarked article in interstate commerce may not limit by agreement, express or implied, the price at which or the persons to whom its purchaser may resell, except as authorized by the Miller-Tydings Act. P. 321 U. S. 721 . 3. The evidence in this case supports the District Court's finding of a combination and conspiracy between the Soft-Lite company (a distributor of trademarked pink-t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-15-1944
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v Hartford-Empire Co. - 322 U.S. 238 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v Hartford-Empire Co. No. 398 Argued February 9, 10, 1944 Decided May 15, 1944 322 U.S. 238 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus Upon appeal from a judgment of the District Court denying relief in a suit by Hartford against Hazel for infringement of a patent, the Circuit Court of Appeals in 1932 held Hartford's patent valid and infringed, and, upon its mandate, the District Court entered judgment accordingly. In 1941, Hazel commenced in the Circuit Court of Appeals this proceeding, wherein it conclusively appeared that Hartford, through publication of an article purporting to have been written by a disinterested person, had perpetrated a fraud on the Patent Office in obtaining the patent and on the Circuit Court of Appeals itself in the infringement suit. Upon review h...
Tag this Judgment!