Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-27-1963
Sperry v. Florida - 373 U.S. 379 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court Sperry v. Florida, 373 U.S. 379 (1963) Sperry v. Florida ex rel. Florida Bar No. 322 Argued March 25, 1963 Decided May 27, 1963 373 U.S. 379 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Syllabus Petitioner is not a lawyer, and has never been admitted to the Bar of any State, but, under regulations issued by the Commissioner of Patents with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 31, he has been authorized to practice before the United States Patent Office. As part of that practice, he has for many years represented patent applicants, prepared and prosecuted their applications, and advised them in connection with their applications in the State of Florida. The Florida Bar sued in the Supreme Court of Florida to enjoin the performance of these and other specified acts within the State, contending that they constituted unauthorized practice of law. Held: 1. Florida may not prohibit petitioner fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-27-1963
Boesch v. Udall - 373 U.S. 472 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court Boesch v. Udall, 373 U.S. 472 (1963) Boesch v. Udall No. 332 Argued February 25, 1963 Decided May 27, 1963 373 U.S. 472 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus The Secretary of the Interior has authority to cancel in an administrative proceeding a noncompetitive lease of public lands issued under the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 in circumstances where such lease was granted in violation of the Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder -- i.e., he has power to correct administrative errors of the sort involved in this case by cancellation of leases in administrative proceedings timely instituted by competing applicants for the same land. Pp. 373 U. S. 473 -486. (a) The Secretary, under his general powers of management over the public lands, has authority to cancel such a lease administratively for invalidity at its inception, unless such ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-17-1963
United States v. Singer Mfg. Co. - 374 U.S. 174 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Singer Mfg. Co., 374 U.S. 174 (1963) United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co. No. 438 Argued April 25, 29, 1963 Decided June 17, 1963 374 U.S. 174 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus The United States sued to restrain appellee, the sole American manufacturer of household zigzag sewing machines, from conspiring with two of its competitors, an Italian manufacturer and a Swiss manufacturer, to restrain interstate and foreign trade in the importation, sale and distribution of such machines in this country. The evidence showed a course of dealings between these three manufacturers, including the cross-licensing of their patents on a nonexclusive, world-wide and royalty-free basis and ultimately the sale and assignment to appellee of an American patent owned by the Swiss manufacturer, in order that it could be enforced more effectivel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-17-1963
United States v. Philadelphia Nat'l Bank - 374 U.S. 321 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Philadelphia Nat'l Bank, 374 U.S. 321 (1963) United States v. Philadelphia National Bank No. 83 Argued February 20-21, 1963 Decided June 17, 1963 374 U.S. 321 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus Appellees, a national bank and a state bank, are the second and third largest of the 42 commercial banks in the metropolitan area consisting of Philadelphia and its three contiguous counties, and they have branches throughout that area. Appellees' boards of directors approved an agreement for their consolidation, under which the national bank's stockholders would retain their stock certificates, which would represent shares in the consolidated bank, while the state bank's stockholders would surrender their shares in exchange for shares in the consolidated bank. After obtaining reports, as required by the Bank Merger Act of 1960...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Nov-12-1963
United States v. Zacks - 375 U.S. 59 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Zacks, 375 U.S. 59 (1963) United States v. Zacks No. 44 Argued October 21, 1963 Decided November 12, 1963 375 U.S. 59 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus In 1952, a taxpayer received royalties on patents all substantial rights under which she had transferred to a manufacturer by way of an exclusive license. She and her husband reported such royalties as ordinary income in their joint return for 1952. This return was filed in 1953; the last payment of taxes thereunder was made in 1953; and a claim for refund was barred in 1956 by 322(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. By the Act of June 29, 1956, Congress amended the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 so as to add 117(q), providing that amounts received in such circumstances should be taxed as capital gains, rather than as ordinary income, and it made the amendment applicable to tax years beginning after May 31, 1950. In r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-27-1963
Lopez v. United States - 373 U.S. 427 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427 (1963) Lopez v. United States No. 236 Argued January 14, 1963 Decided May 27, 1963 373 U.S. 427 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Syllabus In a Federal District Court, petitioner was convicted of attempting to bribe an Internal Revenue Agent in violation of 18 U.S.C. 201. The Agent was investigating possible evasion of excise taxes on cabarets. On a visit to petitioner's inn, the Agent saw dancing in the bar and lounge, spoke to petitioner about it, and suggested that the inn might be liable for a cabaret tax. According to the Agent's testimony, petitioner suggested, after some discussion, that the Agent could drop the case, gave him $420, and promised more in the future. Petitioner also promised to file a return for the current quarter, and invited the Agent to return a few days later. When he kept that appointment, the Agent carried wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-17-1963
School Dist. of Abington Tp. v. Schempp - 374 U.S. 203 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court School Dist. of Abington Tp. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp No. 142 Argued February 27-28, 1963 Decided June 17, 1963 * 374 U.S. 203 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment by Congress of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, no state law or school board may require that passages from the Bible be read or that the Lord's Prayer be recited in the public schools of a State at the beginning of each school day -- even if individual students may be excused from attending or participating in such exercises upon written request of their parents. Pp. 374 U. S. 205 -227. 201 F.Supp. 815, affirmed. 228 Md. 239, 179 A.2d 698, reversed...
Tag this Judgment!