Court : US Supreme Court
Wilcox v. Jackson - 38 U.S. 498 (1839) U.S. Supreme Court Wilcox v. Jackson, 38 U.S. 13 Pet. 498 498 (1839) Wilcox v. Jackson 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 498 ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Syllabus Ejectment for a tract of land in Cook County, Illinois, being a fractional section embracing the military post called Fort Dearborn at the time of the institution of the suit, in the possession of the defendant as the commanding officer of the United States. The post was established in 1804, and was occupied by the troops of the United States until August 16, 1812, when the troops were massacred and the fort taken by the enemy. It was reoccupied by the United States in 1816, and continued to be so held until May, 1823, during which time some factory houses, for the use of the Indian Department, were erected on it. It was evacuated by order of the War Department in 1823, and was, by order of the department, again occupied by troops in 1828 as one of the military posts of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Lessee of Pollard's Heirs v. Kibbe - 39 U.S. 353 (1840) U.S. Supreme Court Lessee of Pollard's Heirs v. Kibbe, 39 U.S. 14 Pet. 353 353 (1840) Lessee of Pollard's Heirs v. Kibbe * 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 353 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA Syllabus Action of ejectment in the state court of Alabama for a lot of ground in the City of Mobile. The plaintiff claimed the title to the lot under an act of Congress, and the decision of the state court was against the right and title so set up and claimed. A writ of error was prosecuted to the Supreme Court of Alabama. It was held that this case was embraced by the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gives this Court jurisdiction to revise the judgment of the state court in such cases. The act of Congress under which title was claimed being a private act and for the benefit of the City of Mobile and certain individuals, it is fair to presume it was passed with reference to the particular claims of indi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L. L. C. - 05-130 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 FONT SCAPS="1">EBAY INC. V. MERCEXCHANGE, L. L. C. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES EBAY INC. etal. v . MERCEXCHANGE, L. L. C. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 05130.Argued March 29, 2006Decided May 15, 2006 Petitioners operate popular Internet Web sites that allow private sellers to list goods they wish to sell. Respondent sought to license its business method patent to petitioners, but no agreement was reached. In respondents subsequent patent infringement suit, a jury found that its patent was valid, that petitioners had infringed the patent, and that damages were appropriate. However, the District Court denied respondents motion for permanent injunctive relief. In reversing, the Federal Circuit applied its general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances. 401 F.3d 1323, 1339. H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Washington v. Glucksberg - 521 U.S. 702 (1997) OCTOBER TERM, 1996 Syllabus WASHINGTON ET AL. v. GLUCKSBERG ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 96-110. Argued January 8, 1997-Decided June 26,1997 It has always been a crime to assist a suicide in the State of Washington. The State's present law makes "[p]romoting a suicide attempt" a felony, and provides: "A person is guilty of [that crime] when he knowingly causes or aids another person to attempt suicide." Respondents, four Washington physicians who occasionally treat terminally ill, suffering patients, declare that they would assist these patients in ending their lives if not for the State's assisted-suicide ban. They, along with three gravely ill plaintiffs who have since died and a nonprofit organization that counsels people considering physician-assisted suicide, filed this suit against petitioners, the State and its Attorney General, seeking a declaration that the ban is, on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Philadelphia & Trenton R. Co. v. Stimpson - 39 U.S. 448 (1840) U.S. Supreme Court Philadelphia & Trenton R. Co. v. Stimpson, 39 U.S. 14 Pet. 448 448 (1840) Philadelphia & Trenton Railroad Company v. Stimpson 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 448 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus Action for the violation of a patent right, granted to the patentee for "a new and useful improvement in turning short curves on railroads." On 26 September, 1835, a second patent was granted, the original patent, granted in 1831, having been surrendered and cancelled on account of a defective specification, the second patent being for fourteen years from the date of the original patent. The second patent was in the precise form of the original, except the recital of the fact that the former patent was cancelled "on account of a defective specification" and the statement of the time the second patent was to begin to run. It was objected that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Watt v. Western Nuclear, Inc. - 462 U.S. 36 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Watt v. Western Nuclear, Inc., 462 U.S. 36 (1983) Watt v. Western Nuclear, Inc. No. 81-1686 Argued January 17, 1983 Decided June 6, 1983 462 U.S. 36 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Stock-Raising Homestead Act of 1916 (SRHA) provided for the settlement of homesteads on lands the surface of which was "chiefly valuable for grazing and raising forage crops." Section 9 of the SRHA reserved to the United States title to "all the coal and minerals" in lands patented under the Act. When respondent mining company acquired a fee interest in land covered by a patent under the Act, it proceeded to remove gravel from a pit located on the land to use in paving streets and sidewalks in a company town where its workers lived. The Bureau of Land Management then notified respondent, and later determined, after a hearing, that the removal of the gravel constituted a trespa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
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
Bilski v. Kappos - 08-964 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 BILSKI V. KAPPOS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BILSKI etal. v . KAPPOS, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR, PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 08964.Argued November 9, 2009Decided June 28, 2010 Petitioners patent application seeks protection for a claimed invention that explains how commodities buyers and sellers in the energy market can protect, or hedge, against the risk of price changes. The key claims are claim 1, which describes a series of steps instructing how to hedge risk, and claim 4, which places the claim 1 concept into a simple mathematical formula. The remaining claims explain how claims 1 and 4 can be applied to allow energy suppliers and consumers to minimize the risks resulting from fluctuations in market demand. The patent examiner rejected the application on the grounds that the invention is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. - 247 U.S. 310 (1918) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 247 U.S. 310 (1918) United States v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company No. 75 Argued January 15, 16, 1918 Decided June 3, 1918 247 U.S. 310 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Act of March 2, 1896, c. 39, 29 Stat. 42, limiting the time within which suits may be brought to vacate land patents, contains a proviso "that no suit shall be brought or maintained, nor shall recovery be had for lands or the value thereof, that were certified or patented in lieu of other lands covered by a grant which were lost or relinquished by the grantee in consequence of the failure of the government or its officers to withdraw the same from sale or entry." Held, that the proviso was a curative measure referring only to lands patented before the enactment, and was no protection for a patent procured afterwards by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Clark v. Herington - 186 U.S. 206 (1902) U.S. Supreme Court Clark v. Herington, 186 U.S. 206 (1902) Clark v. Herington No. 223 Submitted April 14, 1902 Decided June 2, 1902 186 U.S. 206 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS Syllabus While the two statutes making the Union Pacific Railroad grants did not double the price of the even numbered sections within the place limits, yet that was done by the Act of March 6, 1868, c. 20, 15 Stat. 39, and the even numbered sections within the place limits were from that time not open to selection as indemnity lands. The act of Congress provides in terms that the sections of land should be subject to entry only under the homestead and preemption laws, and the Land Department had no power to turn one of those sections over to a railroad company. No title to indemnity lands is vested until an approved selection has been made; up to which time Congress has full power to deal with lands in the indemnity limits as it sees fit. ...
Tag this Judgment!