Court : US Supreme Court
McLean Trucking Co. v. United States - 321 U.S. 67 (1944) U.S. Supreme Court McLean Trucking Co. v. United States, 321 U.S. 67 (1944) McLean Trucking Co. v. United States No. 31 Argued November 12, 15, 1943 Decided January 17, 1944 321 U.S. 67 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. Orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission authorizing, under 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act as amended, the consolidation of certain motor carriers, and, under 214 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, the issuance of securities by the consolidated corporation, sustained as within the authority of the Commission and supported by the findings and the evidence. P. 321 U. S. 88 . 2. The Commission having modified its orders by excluding one of the carriers from the consolidation, and the court below having determined the case in that posture, the only questions here considered are those presented by the modified orders. P. 321 U...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Florida Avocado Growers v. Paul - 373 U.S. 132 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court Florida Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 (1963) Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul No. 45 Argued January 8, 1963 Decided May 13, 1963 * 373 U.S. 132 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus Appellants, who are engaged in the business of growing, packing and marketing Florida avocados in interstate commerce, sued in a Federal District Court to enjoin appellees, state officers of California, from enforcing 792 of the California Agricultural Code, which prohibits the transportation or sale in California of avocados containing less than 8% of oil by weight, against Florida avocados certified as mature under federal regulations issued under the Federal Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. They contended that 792 of the California statute, as so applied, was unconstitutional, because, (1) under the Supremacy Clause, it must be de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona - 325 U.S. 761 (1945) U.S. Supreme Court Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761 (1945) Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona No. 56 Argued March 26, 27, 1945 Decided June 18, 1945 325 U.S. 761 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA Syllabus 1. State power to regulate the length of railroad trains is not curtailed or superseded by 1 of the Interstate Commerce Act (paragraphs 117) of itself, and in the absence of administrative implementation by the Interstate Commerce Commission; nor by provisions of the Safety Appliance Act for brakes on trains; nor by the provision of 25 of Part I of the Interstate Commerce Act permitting the Commission to order the installation of train stop and control devices. Pp. 325 U. S. 765 -766. In enacting legislation within its constitutional authority over interstate commerce, Congress will not be deemed to have intended to strike down a state statute designed to protect the health and safety of the public ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Thornburg v. Gingles - 478 U.S. 30 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) Thornburg v. Gingles No. 83-1968 Argued December 4, 1985 Decided June 30, 1986 478 U.S. 30 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Syllabus In 1982, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted a legislative redistricting plan for the State's Senate and House of Representatives. Appellees, black citizens of North Carolina who are registered to vote, brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging one single-member district and six multimember districts on the ground, inter alia, that the redistricting plan impaired black citizens' ability to elect representatives of their choice in violation of 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. After appellees brought suit, but before trial, 2 was amended, largely in response to Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55 , to make clear that a violation of 2 could be proved by showing discrim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Karcher v. Daggett - 462 U.S. 725 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) Karcher v. Daggett No. 81-2057 Argued March 2, 1983 Decided June 22, 1983 462 U.S. 725 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Syllabus As a result of the 1980 census, the New Jersey Legislature reapportioned the State's congressional districts. The reapportionment plan contained 14 districts, with an average population per district of 526,059, each district, on the average, differing from the "ideal" figure by 0.1384%. The largest district (Fourth District) had a population of 527,472, and the smallest (Sixth District) had a population of 523,798, the difference between them being 0.6984% of the average district. In a suit by a group of individuals challenging the plan's validity, the District Court held that the plan violated Art. I, 2, of the Constitution because the population deviations among districts, although small, were not the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Savage v. Jones - 225 U.S. 501 (1912) U.S. Supreme Court Savage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501 (1912) Savage v. Jones No. 68 Argued January 18, 1912 Decided June 7, 1912 225 U.S. 501 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA Syllabus Where appellant, as complainant below, attacked as unconstitutional a state statute under which the sale of his product was interfered with by the state officer enforcing the statute, and a general demurrer for want of equity is sustained, this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal; nor will the appeal be dismissed because the bill, in one of its allegations, asserted that complainant's product was not one of those specified in the act, if, as in this case, the bill also alleged that the proper state officer had construed the statute as applicable thereto. Sales made in one state to be delivered free on board at a point therein, to be delivered to consumers in another state in the original unbroken packages, freight...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hardin v. Kentucky Utilities Co. - 390 U.S. 1 (1968) U.S. Supreme Court Hardin v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 390 U.S. 1 (1968) Hardin v. Kentucky Utilities Co. No. 40 Argued December 13, 1967 Decided January 16, 1968 * 390 U.S. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent, a private utility company, sued to enjoin the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) from supplying TVA power in alleged violation of 15d of the TVA Act for use in two small Tennessee, towns where, as of July 1, 1957, respondent had supplied 94% of the electric power and TVA 6%. At that time, TVA supplied 62% of the power used in all Claiborne County. It supplied most of the county's rural areas, and on a relatively unprofitable basis. Respondent's retail rates in the two towns were about 2 1/2 times those of TVA. Section 15d of the Act bars TVA from expanding sales outside "the area for which [it] or its distributors were the primary source of power on July 1, 195...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp - 467 U.S. 691 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691 (1984) Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp No. 82-1795 Argued February 21, 1984 Decided June 18, 1984 467 U.S. 691 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Although Oklahoma does not prohibit the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages within the State, it prohibits, in general, the advertising of such beverages. In 1980, the Oklahoma Attorney General determined that the State's advertising ban prohibited cable television systems operating in Oklahoma from retransmitting out-of-state signals containing alcoholic beverage commercials, particularly wine commercials. Petitioners, operators of cable television systems in Oklahoma -- who, with other such operators, had been warned by respondent Director of the Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board that they would be criminally prosecuted if they carried out-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
TWA v. CAB - 336 U.S. 601 (1949) U.S. Supreme Court TWA v. CAB, 336 U.S. 601 (1949) Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board No. 387 Argued February 9, 1949 Decided April 18, 1949 336 U.S. 601 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. The Civil Aeronautics Board is without authority, under the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, as amended, to fix a new mail rate for air carriers and to make it retroactive for a period in which a final rate previously fixed by the Board was in effect and unchallenged by the initiation of the mail rate proceeding. Pp. 336 U. S. 602 -608. 2. Section 406(a) of the Act, which empowers the Board to fix rates for the transportation of mail by aircraft and "to make such rates effective from such date as it shall determine to be proper," is not to be construed as authorizing the Board to make a rate retroactive to a date earlier than the date of the commencement of the rat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Lowe v. SEC - 472 U.S. 181 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Lowe v. SEC, 472 U.S. 181 (1985) Lowe v. Securities and Exchange Commission No. 83-1911 Argued January 7, 1986 Decided June 10, 1985 472 U.S. 181 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner Lowe is the president and principal shareholder of a corporation (also a petitioner) that was registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Act). Because Lowe was convicted of various offenses involving investments, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), after a hearing, ordered that the corporation's registration be revoked and that Lowe not associate with any investment adviser. Thereafter, the SEC brought an action in Federal District Court, alleging that Lowe, the corporation, and two other unregistered corporations (also petitioners) were violating the Act, and that Lowe was violating the SEC's order by publishing, for paid subscribers, purport...
Tag this Judgment!