Us Supreme Court Court February 1934 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. Jefferson Electric Mfg. Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-12-1934
United States v. Jefferson Electric Mfg. Co. - 291 U.S. 386 (1934) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Jefferson Electric Mfg. Co., 291 U.S. 386 (1934) United States v. Jefferson Electric Manufacturing Co. No. 171 Argued December 15, 18, 1933 Decided February 12, 1934 * 291 U.S. 386 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. As a general rule, where the legislation dealing with a particular subject consists of a system of related general provisions indicative of a settled policy, new enactments of a fragmentary nature on that subject are to be taken as intended to fit into the existing system and to be carried into effect conformably to it, excepting as a different purpose is plainly shown. P. 291 U. S. 396 . 2. A manufacturer from whom money had been collected as taxes on account of sales of his products, upon the erroneous assumption that the articles sold were automobile parts or accessories and the sales therefore taxable under Revenue Acts, 1924, 600(3) and 1918...
Local 167, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-05-1934
Local 167, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States - 291 U.S. 293 (1934) U.S. Supreme Court Local 167, Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 291 U.S. 293 (1934) Local 167, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States No. 6 Argued January 17, 18, 1934 Decided February 5, 1934 291 U.S. 293 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 1. Failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. 862 and Rule 9 in respect of assignment of errors may be taken as sufficient ground for dismissal. P. 291 U. S. 296 . 2. Control of the handling, sales and prices of commodities at the place of origin before their interstate journey begins, or in the destination where the interstate movement ends, may operate directly to restrain and monopolize interstate commerce. P. 291 U. S. 297 . 3. The Sherman Act denounces every conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade, including those that are to be carried on by acts constituting intras...
Standard Oil Co. of California Vs. California
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-05-1934
Standard Oil Co. of California v. California - 291 U.S. 242 (1934) U.S. Supreme Court Standard Oil Co. of California v. California, 291 U.S. 242 (1934) Standard Oil Company of California v. California No. 347 Argued January 12, 1934 Decided February 5, 1934 291 U.S. 242 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus A state is without power to levy a license tax in respect of the selling and delivery of goods on a military reservation included within the exterior limits of the state but over which the full legislative authority has been ceded to the United States by an Act of the state legislature. P. 291 U. S. 244 . 218 Cal. 123, 22 P.2d 2, reversed. Appeal from the reversal of a judgment in favor of the Oil Company in an action brought by the state to collect an excise tax together with a penalty. The judgment of reversal directed the trial court to enter judgment for the state as prayed. MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court. By Ch. 267, St...
New Jersey Vs. Delaware
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-05-1934
New Jersey v. Delaware - 295 U.S. 694 (1934) U.S. Supreme Court New Jersey v. Delaware, 295 U.S. 694 (1935) New Jersey v. Delaware No. 11, original Decided February 5, 1934 (291 U.S. 361) Decree entered June 3, 1935 295 U.S. 694 DECREE This cause came on to be heard upon the pleadings, evidence, and the exceptions filed by the parties to the report of the special master, and was argued by counsel. The Court now being fully advised in the premises and for the purpose of carrying into effect the conclusions set forth in the opinion of this Court, announced February 5, 1934 ( 291 U. S. 291 U.S. 361); It is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows: 1. The report of the special master filed in this cause is hereby approved, and all exceptions thereto are hereby overruled. 2. Within the 12-mile circle (that is, within the circle the radius of which is 12 miles, and the center of which is the building used prior to 1881 as the courthouse at New Castle, Delaware, certain ar...
Murray Vs. Joe Gerrick and Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-05-1934
Murray v. Joe Gerrick & Co. - 291 U.S. 315 (1934) U.S. Supreme Court Murray v. Joe Gerrick & Co., 291 U.S. 315 (1934) Murray v. Joe Gerrick & Co. No. 308 Argued January 19, 1934 Decided February 5, 1934 291 U.S. 315 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON Syllabus 1. Where a tract within a state has been acquired by the United States for a Navy Yard, with the consent of the state legislature, and the legislature has ceded to the United States the state's jurisdiction over it saving only the right to serve process, a state law subsequently passed to regulate rights and remedies for death by negligence can have no operation over the tract save as it may be adopted by Congress. P. 291 U. S. 318 . 2. The Act of February 1, 1928, provides that, in case of death of one person by neglect or wrongful act of another within a place subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States within the exterior boundaries of a state, "such right of action shall exist as though ...
United States Vs. Chambers
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-05-1934
United States v. Chambers - 291 U.S. 217 (1934) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Chambers, 291 U.S. 217 (1934) United States v. Chambers No. 659 Argued January 16, 17, 1934 Decided February 5, 1934 291 U.S. 217 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Syllabus 1. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment of the Constitution, which repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, was consummated on December 5, 1933. P. 291 U. S. 222 . 2. Upon the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, the Eighteenth Amendment became inoperative, and neither the Congress nor the courts could give it continued validity. P. 291 U. S. 222 . 3. The National Prohibition Act, to the extent that its provisions rested upon the grant of authority to Congress by the Eighteenth Amendment, immediately fell with the withdrawal by the people of the essential constitutional support. P. 291 U. S. 222 ...
Ftc Vs. R. F. Keppel and Bro., Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-05-1934
FTC v. R. F. Keppel & Bro., Inc. - 291 U.S. 304 (1934) U.S. Supreme Court FTC v. R. F. Keppel & Bro., Inc., 291 U.S. 304 (1934) Federal Trade Comm'n v. R. F. Keppel & Bro., Inc. No.194 Argued January 11, 1934 Decided February 5, 1934 291 U.S. 304 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. The Federal Trade Commission, proceeding under 5 of the Act, ordered respondent, one of numerous candy manufacturers similarly engaged, to desist from selling and distributing in interstate commerce candy in a certain type of package, in assortments so arranged and offered for sale as to avail of the element of chance as an inducement to the retail purchaser. Each package contained Page 291 U. S. 305 display material, attractive to children and explaining the plan by which either the price or the amount of the candy received by the purchaser was affected by chance. The Commission found that the candy in this type of package was inferior in size or quali...
Alabama Vs. Arizona
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-05-1934
Alabama v. Arizona - 291 U.S. 286 (1934) U.S. Supreme Court Alabama v. Arizona, 291 U.S. 286 (1934) Alabama v. Arizona No. ___, original Argued January 9, 1934 Decided February 5, 1934 291 U.S. 286 Syllabus 1. A bill by a state seeking to enjoin five other states from enforcing their statutes against open market sale of products of prison labor, upon the ground that such statutes, and an Act of Congress purporting to divest such products of their interstate character, operate unconstitutionally to deprive the complainant of its interstate markets for goods produced in its prison farms and factories, held multifarious. Bitterman v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 207 U. S. 205 . P. 291 U. S. 290 . 2. This Court may not be called on to give advisory opinions or to pronounce declaratory judgments. P. 291 U. S. 291 . 3. Application by a state for leave to file a bill to enjoin other states from enforcing their laws will not be granted unless the facts alleged Page 291 U. S. 2...
Moore Vs. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-05-1934
Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. - 291 U.S. 205 (1934) U.S. Supreme Court Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., 291 U.S. 205 (1934) Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. No. 173 Argued January 10, 11, 1934 Decided February 5, 1934 291 U.S. 205 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. The jurisdiction of the District Court is to be determined by the allegations of the complaint. P. 291 U. S. 210 . 2. The Federal Employers' Liability Act, in providing that the employee shall not be held guilty of contributory negligence, nor to have assumed the risk, in any case under it where violation by the carrier of "any statute enacted for the safety of employees" contributed to the injury or death, embraces the Federal Safety Appliance Acts. P. 291 U. S. 210 . 3. The Federal Employers' Liability Act and Safety Appliance Acts are in pari materia, and an action under the former in connection with the latter may be brought in the fede...
New Jersey Vs. Delaware
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-05-1934
New Jersey v. Delaware - 291 U.S. 361 (1934) U.S. Supreme Court New Jersey v. Delaware, 291 U.S. 361 (1934) New Jersey v. Delaware No. 13, original Argued January 9, 10, 1934 Decided February 5, 1934 291 U.S. 361 Syllabus 1. The boundary between Delaware and New Jersey, within a circle of twelve-miles about the town of New Castle, is the low water mark of the Delaware River on the East, or New Jersey, side, and below the circle it is the thalweg or main channel of navigation in Delaware River and Delaware Bay. Pp. 291 U. S. 363 , 291 U. S. 385 . 2. Delaware's title to the river bed within the circle is derived as follows: (1) From a feoffment, describing the Delaware territory within the circle, including the river, its islands, and soil, made by the Duke of York to William Penn, August 24, 1682, when the present territory of Delaware, having been taken over from the Dutch, was governed as a dependency of the Government and Colony of New York under governors commissione...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »