Us Supreme Court Court February 1952 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.
Hughes Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-04-1952
Hughes v. United States - 342 U.S. 353 (1952) U.S. Supreme Court Hughes v. United States, 342 U.S. 353 (1952) Hughes v. United States No. 8 Argued January 7, 1952 Decided February 4, 1952 342 U.S. 353 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus A Sherman Act consent decree provided for divorcement of a motion picture company's production-distribution assets from its theater assets. Two new companies were to be formed; their stock was to be distributed to stockholders of the old company, and the latter was to be dissolved. Relative to appellant, who owned 24% of the stock of the old company, the decree provided that he might "either" sell his stock in one or the other of the new companies "or" deposit such stock with a court-designated trustee under a voting trust agreement to remain in force until appellant "shall have sold" his stock in one of the companies. Appellant chose not to sell any stock, and the District Court appoin...
United States Vs. New Wrinkle, Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-04-1952
United States v. New Wrinkle, Inc. - 342 U.S. 371 (1952) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. New Wrinkle, Inc., 342 U.S. 371 (1952) United States v. New Wrinkle, Inc. No. 250 Argued January 10-11, 1952 Decided February 4, 1952 342 U.S. 371 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus A complaint in a civil suit by the United States under 4 of the Sherman Act charging that the two defendants successfully conspired to fix uniform minimum prices and to eliminate competition throughout substantially all of the wrinkle finish industry of the United States by means of patent license agreements held to have charged a violation of 1 of the Sherman Act by both defendants. Pp. 342 U. S. 372 -380. 1. That one of the defendants, a patent-holding company, abstained from manufacturing activities and concentrated on patent licensing did not insulate its activity from the prohibitions of 1 of the Sherman Act. Pp. 342 U. S. 376 -378. 2. ...
Dice Vs. Akron, Canton and Youngstown R. Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-04-1952
Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co. - 342 U.S. 359 (1952) U.S. Supreme Court Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co., 342 U.S. 359 (1952) Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown Railroad Co. No. 374 Argued December 3-4, 1951 Decided February 4, 1952 342 U.S. 359 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Syllabus 1. In an action in a state court under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, the question of the validity of a release granted to the carrier by the injured employee is a federal question, and is to be determined by federal, rather than state, law. Pp. 342 U. S. 361 -362. 2. A release of rights under the Federal Employers' Liability Act is void when the employee is induced to sign it by deliberately false and material statements of the carrier's authorized representatives, made to deceive the employee as to the contents of the release. P. 342 U. S. 362 . 3. In an action brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act in an Ohio state court, which provides j...
Standard Oil Co. Vs. Peck
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-04-1952
Standard Oil Co. v. Peck - 342 U.S. 382 (1952) U.S. Supreme Court Standard Oil Co. v. Peck, 342 U.S. 382 (1952) Standard Oil Co. v. Peck No. 184 Argued January 3-4, 1952 Decided February 4, 1952 342 U.S. 382 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Syllabus Ohio levied an ad valorem personal property tax on all the boats and barges owned by appellant, an Ohio corporation, and employed in transporting oil along the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. The main terminals are in Tennessee, Indiana, Kentucky, and Louisiana. The vessels are registered in Cincinnati, but they neither pick up nor discharge oil in Ohio, they stop in Ohio only for occasional fuel or repairs, they traverse a maximum of only 17 1/2 miles of waters bordering Ohio, and they were almost continuously outside Ohio during the taxable year. Held: since the vessels would be subject to taxation on an apportionment basis in several other states, the Ohio tax on their full value violates the Due Process Clause of the Fo...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›