Us Supreme Court Court June 1925 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.
United States Vs. Noce
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-08-1925
United States v. Noce - 268 U.S. 613 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Noce, 268 U.S. 613 (1925) United States v. Noce No. 360 Argued April 30, 1925 Decided June 8, 1925 268 U.S. 613 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. An army officer held not entitled to count for longevity pay his service as a cadet in the Military Academy. P. 268 U. S. 616 . 2. The proviso in 11 of the Act of May 18, 1920, 41 Stat. 601 "that hereafter longevity pay for officers in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Public Health Service, and Coast and Geodetic Survey shall be based on the total of all service in any or all of said services" does not deal with rules of longevity in any one service, but intends to produce equality as between all the services named, and did not repeal the provisions in the Army and Naval Appropriation Acts, of October 24, 1912, and March 4, 1913, respectively, directing that service in the Military and Naval Academies shall not be counted in ...
William Danzer and Co., Inc. Vs. Gulf and Ship Island R. Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-08-1925
William Danzer & Co., Inc. v. Gulf & Ship Island R. Co. - 268 U.S. 633 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court William Danzer & Co., Inc. v. Gulf & Ship Island R. Co., 268 U.S. 633 (1925) William Danzer & Co., Inc. v. Gulf & Ship Island Railroad Company No. 346 Argued April 28, 1925 Decided June 8, 1925 268 U.S. 633 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus 1. The right of a shipper to an award by the Interstate Commerce Commission of the damages resulting from misrouting of his goods by a carrier is both created and limited by the Interstate Commerce Act. P. 268 U. S. 635 . 2. The limitation of the Act, ( 16(3)) that such complaints shall be filed within two years from the time the cause of action accrues, and not after, enters into the cause of action, so that lapse of that time not only bars the remedy afforded, but destroys the liability of the defendant to the plaintiff. P. 268 U. S. 636 . 3. Section 206(f) of the Trans...
Edwards Vs. Cuba Railroad Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-08-1925
Edwards v. Cuba Railroad Co. - 268 U.S. 628 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Edwards v. Cuba Railroad Co., 268 U.S. 628 (1925) Edwards v. Cuba Railroad Company No. 324 Argued April 15, 1925 Decided June 8, 1925 268 U.S. 628 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. The meaning of "income," as used in 38 of the Corporation Excise Tax Law of 1909, held, in its application to the case, not distinguishable from the meaning of the same word in the Income Tax Law of 1913 and the Revenue Act of 1916. P. 268 U. S. 631 . 2. The Sixteenth Amendment, like other laws authorizing or imposing taxes, is not to be extended beyond the meaning clearly indicated by its words. P. 268 U. S. 631 . 3. Money subsidies granted by the Cuban government to a railroad company of this country, to promote the construction of railroads in Cuba and in consideration also of reduced rates to the public as well as reduced rates and other privileges fo...
Gitlow Vs. People
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-08-1925
Gitlow v. People - 268 U.S. 652 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Gitlow v. People, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) Gitlow v. People No.19 Argued April 12, 1923 Reargued November 23, 1923 Decided June 8, 1925 268 U.S. 652 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus 1. Assumed, for the purposes of the case, that freedom of speech and of the press are among the personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States. P. 268 U. S. 666 . 2. Freedom of speech and of the press, as secured by the Constitution, is not an absolute right to speak or publish without responsibility whatever one may choose or an immunity for every possible use of language. P. 268 U. S. 666 . 3. That a State, in the exercise of its police power, may punish those who abuse this freedom by utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to corrupt public morals, incite to crime or disturb the public peace, is not open to question. ...
Robertson Vs. Railroad Labor Board
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-08-1925
Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board - 268 U.S. 619 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board, 268 U.S. 619 (1925) Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board No. 739 Argued March 17, 18, 1925 Decided June 8, 1925 268 U.S. 619 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus 1. Section 310, par. b, of the Transportation Act, 1920, which provides that the Railroad Labor Board, in case of failure to comply with its subpoena to testify, may invoke the aid of "any United States district court," and that such court may thereupon order the witness to comply with the subpoena, etc., is to be construed consistently with the general rule limiting jurisdiction of a district court in personam (as distinguished from venue) to the district of which the defendant is an inhabitant or in which he can be found. P. 268 U. S. 622 . 2. Hence, a district court, in a suit brought by the Board to compel attendance of a witness, does not ...
Lee Vs. Osceola and Little River Road Imp. Dist.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-08-1925
Lee v. Osceola & Little River Road Imp. Dist. - 268 U.S. 643 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Lee v. Osceola & Little River Road Imp. Dist., 268 U.S. 643 (1925) Lee v. Osceola & Little River Road Improvement District No. 336 Argued April 21, 27, 1925 Decided June 8, 1925 268 U.S. 643 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS Syllabus 1. A decree of a state supreme court enforcing special assessments despite objection that the underlying statute, as construed and applied, deprived the landowners of property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, is reviewable by writ of error. P. 268 U. S. 644 . 2. A state cannot impose special taxes on lands acquired by private owners from the United States on account of benefits resulting from a road improvement made before the United States parted with its title. P. 268 U. S. 645 . 3. When a tax is beyond the constitutional powers of a state, its exaction is a taking of property without due process o...
Davis Vs. L. L. Cohen and Co., Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-08-1925
Davis v. L. L. Cohen & Co., Inc. - 268 U.S. 638 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Davis v. L. L. Cohen & Co., Inc., 268 U.S. 638 (1925) Davis v. L. L. Cohen & Company, Inc. No. 331 Argued April 21, 1925 Decided June 8, 1925 268 U.S. 638 ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF BRISTOL COUNTY, STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus 1. A judgment entered in the Superior Court in Massachusetts in accordance with a rescript from the Supreme Judicial Court on exceptions reserved held reviewable on writ of error directed to the Superior Court. P. 268 U. S. 639 . 2. The cause of action for damage to goods in transport over a railroad under federal control was against the Director General of Railroads exclusively. P. 268 U. S. 640 . 3. When such an action was erroneously brought against the railroad company, it could not be treated as an action against the Director General, and service of process did not bring him into court though made on an agent of the company who might have been properly served...
New York Ex Rel. Rosevale Realty Co. Vs. Kleinert
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-08-1925
New York ex Rel. Rosevale Realty Co. v. Kleinert - 268 U.S. 646 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court New York ex Rel. Rosevale Realty Co. v. Kleinert, 268 U.S. 646 (1925) New York ex Rel. Rosevale Realty Co. v. Kleinert No. 350 Argued April 29, 1925 Decided June 8, 1925 268 U.S. 646 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus Under a law authorizing an administrative board to regulate the height, spacing, etc., of buildings thereafter erected in a city, and Page 268 U. S. 647 for such purposes to divide the city into districts and to change the districts from time to time after notice and hearing, a lot on which plaintiff had planned to build was transferred. to a district of greater restrictions incompatible with the plan, and permission was denied for that reason. Held, (1) That a judgment refusing relief by mandamus was not reviewable by this Court upon he question whether the substantial provisions of the regulations deprived the plaintiff of his property in v...
Selzman Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-01-1925
Selzman v. United States - 268 U.S. 466 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Selzman v. United States, 268 U.S. 466 (1925) Selzman v. United States No. 998 Submitted April 27, 1925 Decided June 1, 1925 268 U.S. 466 ERROR TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus 1. Under the Eighteenth Amendment, Congress has power to prevent or regulate the sale of denatured alcohol which is not usable as a beverage. P. 268 U. S. 467 . 2. The power of the federal government, granted by the Amendment, to enforce the prohibition of the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquor carries with it power to enact any legislative measures reasonably adapted to promote the purpose. P. 268 U. S. 468 . Affirmed. Error to a judgment of the district court based on convictions under two indictments, the one charging conspiracy to violate the Prohibition Act and regulations, in offering denatured alcohol for sale without the required labels, the other ch...
Miles Vs. Graham
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-01-1925
Miles v. Graham - 268 U.S. 501 (1925) U.S. Supreme Court Miles v. Graham, 268 U.S. 501 (1925) Miles v. Graham No. 53 Argued March 16, 1925 Decided June 1, 1925 268 U.S. 501 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Syllabus 1. Under Art. III, 1, of the Constitution it is the duty of Congress definitely to declare the amount which a federal judge shall receive from time to time out of the public funds, and the times of payment, and the amount thus specified becomes his compensation, which is protected against diminution during his continuance in office. Evans v. Gore, 253 U. S. 245 . P. 268 U. S. 506 . 2. So held where the salary of a judge of the Court of Claims was fixed and the appointment was made after enactment of the "Revenue Act of 1918," which prescribed that the official compensation of all the federal judges should be included in their gross income in computing their income taxes. 3. This provision of the Revenue Act f...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »