Court : US Supreme Court
NLRB v. Baptist Hosp., Inc. - 442 U.S. 773 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court NLRB v. Baptist Hosp., Inc., 442 U.S. 773 (1979) National Labor Relations Board v. Baptist Hospital, Inc. No. 78-223 Argued April 23, 1979 Decided June 20, 1979 442 U.S. 773 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR TE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Intervenor labor union filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board with respect to respondent hospital's rule prohibiting solicitation by its employees at all times "in any area of the Hospital which is accessible to or utilized by the public," including the lobbies, gift shop, cafeteria, and entrances on the first floor, as well as corridors, sitting rooms, and public restrooms on the other floors. In justification of the rule, respondent offered extensive evidence, through the testimony of doctors and hospital officials, as to the need for the rule to prevent interference with patients' treatment and convalescence, especiall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Frellsen & Co. v. Crandell - 217 U.S. 71 (1910) U.S. Supreme Court Frellsen & Co. v. Crandell, 217 U.S. 71 (1910) Frellsen & Co. v. Crandell No. 129 Argued March 7, 8, 1910 Decided April 4, 1910 217 U.S. 71 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Syllabus Whether a patent is wrongfully issued or can be set aside is a matter to be settled between the state and the patentee, but no individual is authorized to act for the state. Even if the state could set aside a patent for having been issued on illegal or inadequate consideration, the matter is between it and the patentee, and, until set aside, one tendering the statutory price does not thereby become entitled to receive such land from the state, nor does the tender create a contract with the state within the protection of the contract clause of the federal Constitution. Where the state court so holds, public land of a state, as is the case of public land of the United States, held under patent or certificate o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
McArthur's Heirs v. Dun's Heirs - 48 U.S. 262 (1849) U.S. Supreme Court McArthur's Heirs v. Dun's Heirs, 48 U.S. 7 How. 262 262 (1849) McArthur's Heirs v. Dun's Heirs 48 U.S. (7 How.) 262 ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION IN OPINION BETWEEN THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus The proviso in the second section of the Act passed on 1 March, 1823, 3 Stat. 773, entitled, "An act for extending the time for locating Virginia military land warrants and returning surveys thereon to the General Land Office," which proviso is as follows, viz., "Provided that no locations, as aforesaid, in virtue of this or the preceding section of this act shall be made on tracts of lands for which patents had previously been issued or which had been previously surveyed, and any patent which may nevertheless be obtained for land located contrary to the provisions of this act shall be considered null and void" protected an entry which had been made in the na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Lowndes v. Huntington - 153 U.S. 1 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Lowndes v. Huntington, 153 U.S. 1 (1894) Lowndes v. Huntington No. 117 Argued December 18-19, 1893 Decided April 16, 1894 153 U.S. 1 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus The grant to the Town of Huntington, made by the Governor General under the Duke of York on the 30th of November, 1666, and confirmed by Governor General Dongan in 1688, and again confirmed, with a change in description, by Governor General Fletcher in 1694, operated to convey to the grantee the lands under tidewater in Huntington Bay, as defined by a line drawn from Lloyd's Neck to Eaton's Neck, and any title to such lands under water which came to the State of New York, was ceded to the trustees of the town by the state, by the act of its legislature of May 10, 1888, c. 279. In reaching this conclusion, this Court follows the settled rules of decision in the courts of New York relating to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Warner Valley Stock Co. v. Smith - 165 U.S. 28 (1897) U.S. Supreme Court Warner Valley Stock Co. v. Smith, 165 U.S. 28 (1897) Warner Valley Stock Company v. Smith No. 550 Argued December 17-18, 1896 Decided January 11, 1897 165 U.S. 28 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus A bill in equity against the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of the General Land Office to restrain them from exercising further jurisdiction with respect to the disposition of certain public lands, and from further trespassing upon the plaintiff's right of quiet possession thereof, and to compel the Secretary to prepare patents therefor to be issued to the plaintiff in accordance with law, and to the end that the plaintiff's title may be quieted and freed from cloud, and for further relief, abates, as to the Secretary, upon his resignation of his office, and cannot afterwards be maintained against the Commissioner alone. The case is stated in the opinion. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Root v. Railway Company - 105 U.S. 189 (1881) U.S. Supreme Court Root v. Railway Company, 105 U.S. 189 (1881) Root v. Railway Company 105 U.S. 189 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus A. to whom had been assigned letters patent, filed, after the expiration of them, which took place July 6, 1873, his bill against B., charging that the latter had during their term infringed them by using the patented invention, whereby he realized gains, profits, and savings which he should be compelled to account for and pay to the complainant. The bill was, on demurrer, dismissed. Held that the decree below is proper, the bill being merely for an account of profits and damages against an infringes, and it not appearing from the case thereby made that any ground of equitable jurisdiction exists, or that A. has not a complete remedy at law whereby damages for the wrongs complained of can be recovered. The facts are stated in the opi...
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
Lindsey v. Lessee of Miller - 31 U.S. 666 (1832) U.S. Supreme Court Lindsey v. Lessee of Miller, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 666 666 (1832) Lindsey v. Lessee of Miller 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 666 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus Ejectment. The plaintiff claimed the land in controversy, which was situated in the Virginia Military District in the State of Ohio under a patent from the United States dated l December, 1824, founded on an entry and survey executed in the same year. The defendants offered in evidence a patent, issued by the State of Virginia, in March, 1789, to Richard C. Anderson for the same land, which was rejected by the court, and they gave in evidence an entry and survey of the land made in January, 1783, recorded on 7 April in the same year, and proved possession for upwards of thirty years. The warrant under which the defendants' survey was made stated that the services for which it issued were performed in the Virginia state line...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Kirk v. Smith ex dem. Penn - 22 U.S. 241 (1823) U.S. Supreme Court Kirk v. Smith ex dem. Penn, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 241 241 (1823) Kirk v. Smith ex dem. Penn 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 241 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus The act of Pennsylvania of 1779 "for vesting the estates of the late proprietaries of Pennsylvania in this commonwealth" did not confiscate lands of the proprietaries which were within the lines of manors, nor were the same confiscated by the act of 1751 for establishing a land office. The statute of limitations of Pennsylvania of 1705 is inapplicable to an action of ejectment brought to enforce the unpaid purchase money for lands of the proprietaries within the manors for which warrants had issued. Nor is the statute of limitations of 1785 a bar to such an action. This was an ejectment brought by the defendant in error in the court below to recover the possession of certain lands in York County in the State of Pennsylvania. On 4 March, 1681, Charle...
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!