Court : US Supreme Court
Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY etal. v. MYRIAD GENETICS, INC., etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 12398.Argued April 15, 2013Decided June 13, 2013 Each human gene is encoded as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), which takes the shape of a double helix. Each cross-bar in that helix consists of two chemically joined nucleotides. Sequences of DNA nucleotides contain the information necessary to create strings of amino acids used to build proteins in the body. The nucleotides that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Southern Pacific R. Co. v. United States - 228 U.S. 618 (1913) U.S. Supreme Court Southern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 228 U.S. 618 (1913) Southern Pacific Railroad Company v. United States No. 269 Argued April 30, 1913 Decided May 26, 1913 228 U.S. 618 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Land Grant Adjustment Acts of 1887 and 1896 did not provide for any recovery of interest on amounts for which the railroad companies were required to account for lands erroneously patented to them and sold by them to bona fide settlers, and there was no liability for such interest until the determination of the amounts for which the companies were liable to account. In view of the whole situation, and all the circumstances involved in the determination of the amounts for which the Southern Pacific Railroad Company was liable to account under the Land Grant Adjustment Acts, held that such company was not liable for interest until after the a...
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
BedRoc Limited, LLC v. United States - 02-1593 (2004) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2003 BEDROC LIMITED, LLC V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BEDROC LIMITED, LLC, et al. v. UNITED STATES et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 021593. Argued January 20, 2004Decided March 31, 2004 The Pittman Underground Water Act of 1919 authorized the Secretary of the Interior to designate certain nonmineral Nevada lands on which settlers could obtain permits to drill for water. Under 8 of the Pittman Act, each land grant, or patent, reserved to the United States all coal and other valuable minerals in the lands, and the right to remove the same. When one of petitioners predecessors-in-interest began extracting sand and gravel from land patented under the Pittman Act, the Bureau of Land Management ruled that he had trespassed against the Governments reserved interest in the propertys valuable minerals, and the Interior Board of Land Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Morris v. United States - 174 U.S. 196 (1899) U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. United States, 174 U.S. 196 (1899) Morris v. United States No. 49 Argued October 26, 27, 28, 31, November 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 1898 Decided May 1, 1899 174 U.S. 196 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus The grant by Charles I to Lord Baltimore on the 20th of June, 1632, included in unmistakable terms the Potomac River, and the premises in question in thus suit, and declared that thereafter, the Province of Maryland, its freeholders and inhabitants, should not be held or reputed a member or part of the land of Virginia, and the territory and title thus granted were never divested, and upon the Revolution, the State of Maryland became possessed of the navigable waters of the state, including the Potomac River, and of the soils thereunder, and, by the act of cession to the United States, that portion of the Potomac River with the subjacent soil which was appurtenant to and part of...
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!Court : US Supreme Court
Farbwerke v Chemical Foundation, Inc. - 283 U.S. 152 (1931) U.S. Supreme Court Farbwerke v Chemical Foundation, Inc., 283 U.S. 152 (1931) Farbwerke v Chemical Foundation, Inc. Nos. 179, 180, 181, 182, 271, 272, 273, and 274 Argued March 6, 1931 Decided April 13, 1931 283 U.S. 152 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Where use of enemy-owned patents was licensed under 10 of the original Trading with the Enemy Act, of October 6, 1917, and the Alien Property Custodian, after the amendments of March 28 and November 4, 1918, seized the patents "and every right, title and interest with respect thereto," subject to the rights of the licensee, and assigned to the Chemical Foundation ( see United States v. Chemical Foundation, 272 U. S. 1 ) all right and title which he thus acquired, held that the terms of the seizure should be construed with regard for the general purpose of the legislation Page 283 U. S. 153 to weaken the enemy, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Andrews v. Hovey - 124 U.S. 694 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Andrews v. Hovey, 124 U.S. 694 (1888) Andrews v. Hovey Submitted January 16, 1888 Decided February 20, 1888 124 U.S. 694 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA Syllabus The decision of this Court in Andrews v. Hovey, 123 U. S. 267 , adjudging reissued letters patent No. 4372, granted to Nelson W. Green, May 9, 1871, for an "improvement in the method of constructing artesian wells" to be invalid confirmed on an application for a rehearing. The case of Kendall v. Winsor, 21 How. 322, and other cases examined. The question of the proper construction of the second clause of 7 of the patent Act of March 3, 1839, 5 Stat. 354, as affecting the validity of a patent, considered. This was a petition for a rehearing of the case decided at this term and reported in 123 U.S. at 123 U. S. 267 . The allegations and prayer of the petitioners were as follows: Page 124 U. S. 695...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Reynolds v. McArthur - 27 U.S. 417 (1829) U.S. Supreme Court Reynolds v. McArthur, 27 U.S. 2 Pet. 417 417 (1829) Reynolds v. McArthur 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 417 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Syllabus The lands northwest of the River Ohio, between the Rivers Scioto and Little Miami, lying west of Ludlow's Line, east of Roberts' Line, and south of the Indian boundary, reserved by Virginia in her deed of cession to the United States of March, 1784, for the satisfaction of the military bounties Virginia had promised, were not, prior to 1810, by any legislative acts of the government of the United States withdrawn from appropriation under and by virtue of Virginia military land warrants. A patent issued on 12 October, 1812, founded upon a military land warrant for land within the reserved lands is valid against a claimant of the same land holding under a sale made by the United States. This was an action of ejectment brought originally in the Court of Common Pleas for Champaign Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. California & Oregon Land Co. - 192 U.S. 355 (1904) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. California & Oregon Land Co., 192 U.S. 355 (1904) United States v. California & Oregon Land Company Nos. 4-5 Argued March 14, 17, 1902 Reargued December 9, 10, 1902 Reargued January 5-7, 1904 Decided February 1, 1904 192 U.S. 355 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Syllabus A decree rendered upon a bill in equity brought under the Act of March 2, 1889, 25 Stat. 850, to have patents for land declared void as forfeited and to establish the title of the United States to the land is a bar to a subsequent bill brought against the same defendants to recover the same land on the ground that it was excepted from the original grant as an Indian reservation. As a general rule, a party asserting a right to suit is barred by a judgment or decree upon the merits as to all media concludendi or grounds for asserting the right known when th...
Tag this Judgment!