Court : US Supreme Court
Choate v. Trapp - 224 U.S. 665 (1912) U.S. Supreme Court Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665 (1912) Choate v. Trapp No. 809 Argued February 23, 1912 Decided May 13, 1912 224 U.S. 665 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Syllabus There is a broad distinction between the power to abrogate a statute and to destroy rights acquired under it, and while Congress, under its plenary power over Indian tribes, can amend or repeal an agreement by a later statute, it cannot destroy actually existing individual rights of property acquired under a former statute or agreement. The individual Choctaw and Chickasaw Indian had no title or enforceable right in tribal property, but Congress recognized his equitable interest therein in the Curtis Act of June 28, 1898, 30 Stat. 505, and offered to give to him, in consideration of his consenting to the distribution, an allotment of nontaxable land, and the acceptance of the patent by each member of the tribe was on the consideration of r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Goldstein v. California - 412 U.S. 546 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973) Goldstein v. California No. 71-1192 Argued December 13, 1972 Decided June 18, 1973 412 U.S. 546 CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Syllabus Petitioners, convicted for committing acts of "record piracy" or "tape piracy" in 1970-1971, challenge the California statute proscribing such practices, as violative of the "Copyright Clause," Art. I, 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution, and the federal statutes enacted thereunder. The state appellate court upheld the validity of the statute. Held: 1. Article I, 8, cl. 8, does not expressly or by inference vest all power to grant copyright protection exclusively in the Federal Government. Pp. 412 U. S. 552 -561. (a) Although the objective of the Copyright Clause was to facilitate the granting of rights national in scope, it does not indicate that all "Writings" are of na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Whited & Wheless, Ltd. - 246 U.S. 552 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Whited & Wheless, Ltd., 246 U.S. 552 (1918) United States v. Whited & Wheless, Limited No. 204 Submitted March 19, 1918 Decided April 15, 1918 246 U.S. 552 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The provision in the Act of March 3, 1891, 8, 26 Stat. 1099, that "suits by the United States to vacate and annul patents hereafter issued shall only be brought within six years after the date of the issuance of such patents," was designed for the security of patent titles, and does not apply to an action at law to recover the value of patented land as damages for deceit practiced by the defendant in procuring the patent. A statute of limitations should be strictly construed in favor of the government. Where there are two remedies for the protection of the same right, one may be barred and the other not. The provision in the Act of March 2, 1896, limi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Schweiker v. Wilson - 450 U.S. 221 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221 (1981) Schweiker v. Wilson No. 79-1380 Argued December 2, 1980 Decided March 4, 1981 450 U.S. 221 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which is part of the Social Security Act, provides a subsistence allowance to needy aged, blind, and disabled persons. Inmates of public institutions are generally excluded from this program, except that, under 1611(e)(1)(B) of the Act, a reduced amount of SSI benefits are provided to otherwise eligible persons in a hospital, extended care facility, nursing home, or intermediate care facility receiving Medicaid funds for their care. Appellees, aged 21 through 64 and residing in public mental institutions that do not receive Medicaid funds for their care, brought a class action in Federal District Court challenging their exclusion from the reduced...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Park N' Fly Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc. - 469 U.S. 189 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Park N' Fly Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985) Park N' Fly Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985) No. 83-1132 Argued October 9, 1984 Decided January 8, 1985 469 U.S. 189 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner operates long-term parking lots near airports in St. Louis Cleveland, Houston, Boston, Memphis, and San Francisco. In 1969, petitioner applied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register a service mark consisting of the logo of an airplane and the words "Park 'N Fly." The registration issued in 1971, and nearly six years later petitioner filed an affidavit with the Patent and Trademark Office to establish the incontestable status of the mark under 33(b) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act), which provides that "registration shall be conclusive evidence of the registrant's ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Sinking Fund Cases - 99 U.S. 700 (1878) U.S. Supreme Court Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700 (1878) Sinking Fund Cases 99 U.S. 700 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. So far as it establishes in the Treasury of the United States a sinking fund, the Act of Congress approved May 7, 1878, 20 Stat. 56, entitled "An Act to alter and amend the act entitled 'An Act to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean, and to secure to the government the use of the same for postal, military, and other purposes,' approved July 1, 1862, and also to alter and amend the act of Congress approved July 2, 1864, in amendment of said first-named act," is not unconstitutional. 2. The debt of the respective companies therein named to the United States is not paid by depositing and investing the fund in the manner prescribed by that act, 3. Retaining in the fund the one-half of the earnings for services rendered to the government by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Dalles Military Road Co. - 140 U.S. 599 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Dalles Military Road Co., 140 U.S. 599 (1891) United States v. Dalles Military Road Company Nos. 1218, 1219, 1248, 1444 to 1448 Argued March 8-9, 1891 Decided May 25, 1891 140 U.S. 599 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Syllabus In suits in equity brought by the United States under the Act of Congress passed March 2, 1889, 25 stat. 850, against corporations and persons claiming to own lands granted to the State of Oregon by the Acts of Page 140 U. S. 600 Congress of July 2, 1864, 13 Stat. 355, July 5, 1866, 14 Stat. 89, and February 25, 1867, 14 Stat. 409, to declare the lands to be forfeited to the United States and to set aside, for fraud, patents granted therefor, the defendants pleaded the issuing of certificates by the governor without fraud committed upon or by him; that they were bona fide purchasers, for a valuable consi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
NLRB v. Health Care & Retirement Corp. of America - 511 U.S. 571 (1994) OCTOBER TERM, 1993 Syllabus NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. HEALTH CARE & RETIREMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 92-1964. Argued February 22, 1994-Decided May 23, 1994 Employees are considered "supervisors," and thus are not covered under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. 152(3), if they have authority, requiring the use of independent judgment, to engage in one of 12 listed activities and they hold the authority "in the interest of the employer," 152(11). Petitioner National Labor Relations Board has stated that a nurse's supervisory activity incidental to the treatment of patients is not authority exercised in the interest of the employer. Respondent owns and operates a nursing home at which staff nursesincluding the four nurses involved in this case-are the senior ranking employees on duty most of the time, ensure adequa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD WALKER AND LORD COLLINS (with whom Lord Phillips and Lady Hale agree) Introduction 1. The first Star Wars film (later renamed "Star Wars Episode IV “ A New Hope" in order to provide for "prequels" as well as sequels) was released in the United Statesin 1977. It was an enormous commercial success. It won an Oscar for best costume design. This appeal is concerned with intellectual property rights in various artefacts made for use in the film. The most important of these was the Imperial Stormtrooper helmet to which the trial judge (Mann J) referred in his judgment ([2008] EWHC 1878 (Ch), [2009] FSR 103, paras [2] and [121]): "One of the most abiding images in the film was that of the Imperial Stormtroopers. These were soldiers clad in white armour, including a white helmet which left no part of the face uncovered. . . The purpose of the helmet was that it was to be worn as an item of costume in a film, to identify a character, but in addition to portray something about that ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
Lord Sumption (with whom Lady Hale, Lord Clarke and Lord Carnwath agree) 1. In this case, Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd wishes to recover damages exceeding 49,000,000 for the infringement of a European Patent which does not exist in the form said to have been infringed. The Technical Board of Appeal ("TBA") of the European Patent Office ("EPO") has retrospectively amended it so as to remove with effect from the date of grant all the claims said to have been infringed. 2. The TBA found that in the form in which the patent was originally granted the relevant claims were invalid because they had been anticipated by prior art. Virgin says that it is nevertheless entitled to recover damages for infringement because before the TBA had issued its decision, the English courts had held the patent to be valid and specifically rejected the objection based on prior art. Their case is that this conclusion and the finding of validity on which it is based are res judicata notwithstanding the later but ...
Tag this Judgment!