Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-03-1969
Utah v. United States - 394 U.S. 89 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Utah v. United States, 394 U.S. 89 (1969) Utah v. United States No. 31, Orig. Decided March 3, 1969 394 U.S. 89 ON EXCEPTIONS TO SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT Syllabus In this dispute between the United States and Utah over ownership of the Great Salt Lake, the Special Master refused to permit the intervention by Morton International, Inc., a claimant to part of the property, because Utah had not waived its sovereign immunity as to Morton's suit. Held: The Special Master's Report will be placed on file and his denial of intervention is approved, since a Stipulation entered into between Utah and the United States has so limited the issues that the presence of Morton and other private claimants is neither necessary nor appropriate. PER CURIAM. We are called upon to deal with exceptions filed by Morton International, Inc., which protests the decision by our Special Master, Senior Circuit Judge J. Cullen Ganey, denying i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-28-1969
United States v. Bacto-Unidisk - 394 U.S. 784 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Bacto-Unidisk, 394 U.S. 784 (1969) United States v. An Article of Drug . . . Bacto-Unidisk No. 343 Argued January 23, 1969 Decided April 28, 1969 394 U.S. 784 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Antibiotic sensitivity disc used as laboratory screening test to help determine proper antibiotic drug to administer to patients held not merely a "device" but a "drug" within definition of 201(g)(1)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and thus subject to pre-market clearance regulations issued pursuant to 507 of the Act. Pp. 394 U. S. 791 -801. 392 F.2d 21, reversed. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the court. At issue here is the scope of the statutory definition of drug contained in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the extent of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare's regulatory authority und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-19-1969
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. - 395 U.S. 100 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969) Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. No. 49 Argued January 22, 1969 Decided May 19, 1969 395 U.S. 100 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Upon the expiration in 1959 of petitioner, Zenith's, license agreement with Hazeltine Research, Inc. (HRI), which permitted Zenith to use all of HRI's so-called standard package license, Zenith refused to renew, asserting that it no longer required a license. HRI brought a patent infringement suit in November, 1959. Zenith's answer alleged invalidity of the patent, noninfringement, patent misuse by HRI, and HRI's unclean hands through conspiracy with foreign patent pools. In May, 1963, Zenith counterclaimed against HRI for treble damages and injunctive relief, alleging Sherman Act violations by misuse of HRI patents, including the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-16-1969
Lear, Inc. v. Adkins - 395 U.S. 653 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653 (1969) Lear, Inc. v. Adkins No. 56 Argued November 20-21, 1968 Decided June 16, 1969 395 U.S. 653 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus Respondent, an engineer and inventor, was hired in 1952 by petitioner (Lear) to help solve gyroscope development problems. They had agreed that "new ideas, discoveries, inventions etc. related to . . . vertical gyros become the property of" respondent, and that the inventor would grant Lear a license as to all ideas he might develop "on a mutually satisfactory royalty basis." Shortly thereafter, respondent developed a method for improving gyros which Lear incorporated into its production process. In 1954, respondent filed a patent application covering these improvements and entered into licensing negotiations with Lear to establish a royalty rate. An agreement, concluded in 1955, provided that, if the "Patent Office refuses to i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-31-1969
United States v. Conway - 175 U.S. 60 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Conway, 175 U.S. 60 (1899) United States v. Conway No. 18 Argued and submitted January 12, 1899 Decided October 80, 1899 175 U.S. 60 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS Syllabus The Act of Congress of December 22, 1858, 11 Stat. 374, confirming a grant of pueblos to Indians, operated to release to the Indians all the title of the United States to the land covered by it as effectually as if it contained in terms a grant de novo, and such action of Congress is not subject to judicial review. Page 175 U. S. 61 The United States is a proper and necessary party to a suit brought in the Court of Private Land Claims for confirmation of a private land claim covering pueblos previously so granted to Indians, and can follow the litigation through all the courts that are given jurisdiction of the case. When a title to public land has been confirmed by Congress, it should be respected by the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-31-1969
United States v. Estate of Donnelly - 397 U.S. 286 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Estate of Donnelly, 397 U.S. 286 (1970) United States v. Estate of Donnelly No. 104 Argued January 12, 1970 Decided larch 23, 1970 397 U.S. 286 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondents Carlson made a bona fide purchase in 1960 of realty in Livingston County, Michigan, from one Donnelly against whom the Government had acquired a tax lien in 1950. Section 3672 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 provided that a federal tax lien became valid against a subsequent purchaser if notice of the lien had been filed (1) in a state office in which the filing of such notice was "authorized" by state law or (2) in the federal district court for the district where the property was located, if filing in a state office was not thus "authorized." Concluding that the state law, which imposed a more onerous requirement of content than federal law, ...
Tag this Judgment!