Us Supreme Court Court January 1916 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
illinois Central R. Co. Vs. Skaggs
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-31-1916
Illinois Central R. Co. v. Skaggs - 240 U.S. 66 (1916) U.S. Supreme Court Illinois Central R. Co. v. Skaggs, 240 U.S. 66 (1916) Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Skaggs No.194 Argued January 19, 20, 1916 Decided January 31, 1916 240 U.S. 66 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Syllabus Where two employees of the carrier are necessarily working together, as under the exigencies existing in this case, each has a reasonable latitude in relying upon statements of the other made in the course of and as a part of the operation, and if statements made negligently by one result in injury of the other properly relying thereon, the latter is not barred from recovering under the Employers' Liability Act. The salutary rule that a party is not entitled to sit silent until after verdict, and then insist that it shall be set aside because the trial court failed to particularly specify in its charge some matter to which its attention had not been suitably called has not...
Lamar Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-31-1916
Lamar v. United States - 240 U.S. 60 (1916) U.S. Supreme Court Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60 (1916) Lamar v. United States * No. 434 Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted January 17, 1916 Decided January 31, 1916 240 U.S. 60 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Jurisdiction is a matter of power, and covers wrong, as well as right, decisions. The district court has cognizance of all crimes cognizable under the authority of the United States, and acts equally within its jurisdiction whether it decides that the accused is guilty or innocent, and whether its decision is right or wrong. The objection that an indictment does not charge a crime against the United States goes only to the merits of the case. The question in what sense the word officer is used in 32, Criminal Code, is not one involving the Constitution of the United States. The same words may have different meanings as differently used, and Page ...
Kansas City Western Ry. Co. Vs. Mcadow
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-31-1916
Kansas City Western Ry. Co. v. McAdow - 240 U.S. 51 (1916) U.S. Supreme Court Kansas City Western Ry. Co. v. McAdow, 240 U.S. 51 (1916) Kansas City Western Railway Company v. McAdow No. 127 Submitted January 18, 1916 Decided January 31, 1916 240 U.S. 51 ERROR TO THE KANSAS CITY COURT OF APPEALS, STATE OF MISSOURI Syllabus If the declaration on which a case is tried brings it under the Employers' Liability Act, the fact that the particular allegation showing that plaintiff was engaged in interstate commerce appeared as an amendment does not raise a federal question. Page 240 U. S. 52 The law governing the situation in an action in a state court under the Employers' Liability Act is equally the law of the state whether derived from Congress or the state legislature, and must be noticed by the Court. An electric railway from Leavenworth, Kansas, to Kansas City, Kansas, with a traffic agreement with a street railway company operating in Kansas City, Missouri, held to be a ...
Crocker Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-31-1916
Crocker v. United States - 240 U.S. 74 (1916) U.S. Supreme Court Crocker v. United States, 240 U.S. 74 (1916) Crocker v. United States No. 77 Argued December 1, 2, 1915 Decided January 31, 1916 240 U.S. 74 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus The findings of the Court of Claims in an action at law determine all matters of fact precisely as a verdict of a jury, and this Court cannot refer to the opinion for the purpose of eking out, controlling, or modifying their scope. Secret arrangements with government officials by which they share in profits on contracts which they have a voice in awarding are most reprehensible, and vitiate the contract, justifying its rescission, even if made by those negotiating the contract on behalf of the contractor and without the actual knowledge of the latter. Page 240 U. S. 75 No recovery can be had upon a government contract tainted with fraud and rescinded by the proper officer of the government on that ground. The rescission of a gov...
Gast Realty and Inv. Co. Vs. Schneider Granite Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-31-1916
Gast Realty & Inv. Co. v. Schneider Granite Co. - 240 U.S. 55 (1916) U.S. Supreme Court Gast Realty & Inv. Co. v. Schneider Granite Co., 240 U.S. 55 (1916) Gast Realty & Investment Company v. Schneider Granite Company No. 211 Argued January 21, 1916 Decided January 31, 1916 240 U.S. 55 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI Syllabus The legislature may create taxing districts to meet the expense of local improvements without encountering the Fourteenth Amendment unless its action is palpably arbitrary or a plain abuse. The law does not attempt an imaginary exactness or go beyond reasonable probabilities in establishing taxing districts. A law establishing a taxing district under which there is no reasonable presumption that substantial justice will be done, but under which parties will probably be disproportionately taxed, cannot stand as constitutional against one actually so taxed. The ordinance of St. Louis authorized by the charter of that city levying ...
Fleitmann Vs. Welsbach Street Lighting Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-24-1916
Fleitmann v. Welsbach Street Lighting Co. - 240 U.S. 27 (1916) U.S. Supreme Court Fleitmann v. Welsbach Street Lighting Co., 240 U.S. 27 (1916) Fleitmann v. Welsbach Street Lighting Company Nos. 145, 146 Argued December 17, 1915 Decided January 24, 1916 240 U.S. 27 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus When the penalty of triple damages is sought under 7 of the Anti-Trust Act, the liability can only be enforced through the verdict of a jury in a court of common law. While, under the Act of October 15, 1914, private parties can obtain an injunction against threatened loss, that act, in terms, goes no farther. A suit in equity by a single stockholder of a corporation against that and other corporations to require the latter to pay to the former threefold damages under 7 of the Sherman Act cannot be maintained, nor, in such a case, can there be a decree requiring the corporation of which plaintiff is a stockholder to sue the other corpor...
Brushaber Vs. Union Pacific R. Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-24-1916
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co. - 240 U.S. 1 (1916) U.S. Supreme Court Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company No. 140 Argued October 14, 15, 1915 Decided January 24, 1916 240 U.S. 1 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Under proper averments, a stockholder's suit to restrain a corporation from voluntarily paying a tax charged to be unconstitutional is not violative of Rev.Stat. 3224, and the district court has jurisdiction to entertain the action. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429 . In this case -- that of a stockholder against a corporation to restrain the latter from voluntarily paying the income tax imposed by the Tariff Act of 1913 -- the defendant corporation notified the government of the pendency of the action and the United States was heard as amicus curiae in support of the constitutionality of the Act. The Sixteenth Am...
New York, P. and N. R. Co. Vs. Peninsula Exchange
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-24-1916
New York, P. & N. R. Co. v. Peninsula Exchange - 240 U.S. 34 (1916) U.S. Supreme Court New York, P. & N. R. Co. v. Peninsula Exchange, 240 U.S. 34 (1916) New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk Railroad Company v. Peninsula Produce Exchange No. 137 Argued December 15, 16, 1915 Decided January 24, 1916 240 U.S. 34 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND Syllabus The Carmack Amendment of June 29, 1906, extends to failure to transport with reasonable dispatch, and under it there can be a recovery from the initial carrier for loss, damage, or injury for such failure although on the line of the connecting carrier. A subsequent legislative interpretation of a statute is entitled to great weight. A condition of the tariff filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission that the carrier was not bound to transport on a particular train or vessel to arrive at a particular market or otherwise than with reasonable dispatch does not relieve the carrier from liability under the ...
Mt. Vernon-woodberry Co. Vs. Alabama Power Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-24-1916
Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Co. v. Alabama Power Co. - 240 U.S. 30 (1916) U.S. Supreme Court Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Co. v. Alabama Power Co., 240 U.S. 30 (1916) Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Cotton Duck Company v. Alabama Interstate Power Company No. 200 Submitted January 10, 1916 Decided January 24, 1916 240 U.S. 30 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA Syllabus Prohibition is a distinct suit, and the judgment finally disposing of it is a final judgment by common law as well as under the statutes of Alabama within the meaning of Judicial Code, 237. The fact that the denial of a petition for writ of prohibition does not decide the merits of the principal suit is immaterial so far as finality of the judgment is concerned. Where the state court has denied a petition for writ of prohibition, all the points urged exclusively under the the Constitution must be taken to have been decided adversely to plaintiff in error, and this Court in such respect follows the state court. To m...
Loomis Vs. Lehigh Valley R. Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-24-1916
Loomis v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. - 240 U.S. 43 (1916) U.S. Supreme Court Loomis v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 240 U.S. 43 (1916) Loomis v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company No. 106 Argued December 6, 1915 Decided January 24, 1916 240 U.S. 43 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus The purpose of the Act to Regulate Commerce was to secure and preserve uniformity, and the courts may not, as an original question, exert authority over subjects which primarily come within the jurisdiction of the Commission. The character of equipment which the carrier must provide and allowances which it must make for instrumentalities supplied, and services rendered, by the shipper -- such as inside doors and bulkheads in cars and timber therefor -- are problems which directly concern ratemaking, and are peculiarly administrative on which there should be an appropriate inquiry by the Interstate Commerce Commission before being submitted to a court. The opinions of the Interstate Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »