Volume 274 — United States Reports

Held: that Lowe’s contest was filed against a validated and subsisting entry which had had the effect of segregating the land from the *29 public domain and thereby precluding the subsequent entry attempted to be made by Dickson. Holt v. Murphy, 207 U. S. 407 , 412.

Held: Plaintiff had the burden to show that the specified negligence was the proximate cause of his injuries, and a verdict in his favor can not be sustained if essential facts are left to conjecture and speculation. P. 72. 2.

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Despite changing attitudes about sterilization, the Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell. It is widely believed to have been weakened by Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), which deemed compulsory sterilization of male habitual criminals unconstitutional. Legal scholar and Holmes biographer G.

Held: in the Klumpp case, as it holds here, that the case came within the exception to the general rule for the use of trade terms in interpreting tariff acts.

United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927), is a United States Supreme Court case that allowed prosecution of criminals for income tax evasion notwithstanding the Fifth Amendment. The case also served as the legal test for prosecution of Al Capone for tax evasion by Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt. Willebrandt theorized illegally earned income was subject to income tax, and she tested her theory using Sullivan. Once the theory was found sound, she moved to prosecute Capone in 1931.

Held: that the creditor was not guilty of laches; that his failure to file his claim within the time limited in the foreclosure case arid thus conform to the terms of the reorganization plan, did not bar him from participating in its benefits with the other unsecured creditors, if that were still equitably possible; and that such relief might be had as well upon an intervening petition as upon an original bill.

Burns v. United States, 274 U.S. 328 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court decision centered around William Burns' arrest in California while acting as a labor organizer for the Industrial Workers of the World (I.W.W.). Despite Burns attempts to claim that his association with the labor group the Industrial Workers of the World did not constitute grounds to convict him and took issue the jury instructions that framed the I.W.W. as an illegal organization, the Supreme Court chose to uphold the California Criminal Syndicalism Act and Burns' conviction. Due to the complexities of the I.W.W.'s relationship to sabotage, and amidst court cases such as Whitney v. California and Fiske v.

Held: the intrastate log rates were not to be dealt with separately but were to be considered in connection, with the interstate lumber rates, and' because the carriers made no showing as to the gains or losses resulting from the interstate transportation. That cannot be sustained.

Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352 (1927), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a statute designating the Massachusetts registrar of motor vehicles as agent for purpose of service of process for out-of-state non-resident motorists complies with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of an individual who had engaged in speech that raised a clear and present danger to society. While the majority of the Supreme Court justices voted to uphold the conviction, the ruling has become an important free speech precedent due to a concurring opinion by Justice Louis Brandeis recommending new perspectives on criticism of the government by citizens. The ruling was explicitly overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969.

Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court Case that was first argued May 3, 1926 and finally decided May 16, 1927.

Held: but by which a .judgment of the federal District Court is a lien on property in the county in which it is rendered only if a transcript thereof be filed in the office of the clerk of the state circuit court, does not comply with the Act of Congress of August 1,1888, supra, even though the lien of the federal judgment, upon the filing of the transcript, relate back to the date of rendition, and notwithstanding that…

Biddle v. Perovich, 274 U.S. 480 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that under his power "to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States" (Article II, Section 2), the President may commute a sentence of death to life imprisonment without the convict's consent. This was a modification of the result in Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79, limited page 274 U.S. 486. Response to a certificate of questions from the circuit court of appeals, arising upon review of a judgment of the district court in habeas corpus discharging Perovich from the Leavenworth Penitentiary.

Held: and determined by the courts of said-State, the successors of said district courts of the Territory of Oklahoma, and the United States courts in the Indian Territory; with the right to prosecute appeals or writs of error to the supreme or appellate court of said State, and also with the same right to prosecute appeals or writs of error from the final determination in such cases made by the supreme or appellate court…

United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559 (1927), is a significant decision by the United States Supreme Court protecting prohibition laws. The Court held 1) the Coast Guard may seize, board, and search vessels beyond the U.S. territorial waters and the high seas 12 miles outward from the coast if probable cause exists to believe that the vessel and persons in it are violating U.S. revenue laws, and 2) the Coast Guard's use of searchlights to view contents of a vessel on the high seas does not constitute a search and thus does not warrant Fourth Amendment protections.

Held: Euclid v. Ambler Co., 272 U. S. 365 , that comprehensive zoning laws and ordinances, prescribing, among other things, the height of buildings to be erected (Welch v. Swasey, 214 U. S. 91 ) and the extent of the area to be left opén for light and air and in aid of fire protection, etc., are, in their general scope, valid under the federal Constitution.

Held: as applied to a vessel documented as a vessel of the United States and enrolled for the coastwise trade: 1. The state law does not interfere with the use of such vessels as instrumentalities of interstate commerce. P. 617. 2.

Held: in substance, that the reciprocal agreement or understanding between the Eastman Company and the Allied Laboratories that their members would use only American-made films in the manufacture of prints, and the Company would not operate its laboratories for the manufacture, of prints, was an Unfair method of competition which the Commission had authority to prevent; but that — one judge dissenting— it was not unlawful…

Held: that by reason of this clause the liens to secure deferred payments do not take priority over the liens for maintenance because the latter are not liens created by the land owners, which alone are subordinated to the purchase contract liens. But we think the quoted clause cannot be thus narrowly construed. It is not in terms a limitation on the general language of the section but an amplification of it.

Held: on a similar state of facts, that the State of Nevada was not a necessary party to the suit and that the contract between it and its purchaser operated , to vest the equitable interest in the lands in him, the legal interest being retained as security for the purchase price. This Court said: “ The State of Nevada might have intervened. It did not;-doubtless, because it felt it had no real interest.