Volume 283 — United States Reports

McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25 (1931), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding whether the theft of an airplane was illegal under federal law, given that the law only criminalized theft of a "vehicle."

Carbice Corp. v. American Patents Development Corp., 283 U.S. 27 (1931), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court extending the patent misuse doctrine against tie-ins to cases in which patents were used to tie the purchase of unpatented elements of patented combinations. The Court had previously held that it was unlawful to require the purchase of supplies as a condition of a patent license, where the supplies were not claimed as part of the patented combination.

Held: to have no bearing on the validity of the statute. Fairmont Creamery Co. v. Minnesota, 274 U. S. 1 , 5. The evidence was thus summarized by the state court: “ This evidence tended to show that the petitioner ” (the appellant here) “was incorporated in the State of New York in 1901 and is engaged in the business of tanning, manufacturing and selling belting and other heavy leathers.

Held: purchased, or taken by said bank or association under the provisions of section eleven and section thirteen of this Act.

Held: shall be conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid over to the Alien Property Custodian, or the same may be .seized by the Alien Property Custodian; and all property thus acquired shall be held, administered and disposed of as elsewhere provided in this Act. . “Any requirement made pursuant to this Act, or a duly certified copy thereof, may be filed, registered, or recorded in any office for the filing,…

Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co., 283 U.S. 191 (1931), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a hotel operator which provided headphones connected to a centrally controlled radio receiver was guilty of copyright infringement, because "reception of a radio broadcast and its translation into audible sound is not a mere audition of the original program. It is essentially a reproduction."

Held: that the mother was entitled to the insurance in her lifetime, it does not follow that respondent, by virtue of his office as administrator, or claiming in the mother’s right, is entitled to payment of the insurance under the judgment in her favor.

Held: that its liquidation or valuation was impossible.

Held: that the allowance granted was not reasonable—as the act required it should be—because although it reflected the actual depletion in the year 1918, considered by itself, the result of the application of the regulation will fall short of returning to the taxpayer its March 1, 1913, capital tax-free at the date of exhaustion of the oil reserve.

Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 7–2, that a California statute banning red flags was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In the case, Yetta Stromberg was convicted for displaying a red flag daily in the youth camp for children at which she worked, and was charged in accordance with California law. Chief Justice Charles Hughes wrote for the seven-justice majority that the California statute was unconstitutional, and therefore Stromberg's conviction could not stand.

Held: a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Interstate Commerce Commission as a condition precedent to the validity of any order on the part of the State Commission, we find no warrant for construing the statute as precluding the application which is necessary to obtain such a certificate.

Burnet v. Logan, 283 U.S. 404 (1931), was a case before the United States Supreme Court.

Arizona v. California is a set of United States Supreme Court cases, all dealing with disputes over water distribution from the Colorado River between the states of Arizona and California. It also covers the amount of water that the State of Nevada receives from the river.

Held: that the Commission’s finding that appellants’ warehouses are not in fact public freight stations, is supported by the evidence. As already indicated, they are owned or controlled by appellants and used by them, as storage and distribution warehouses located on private premises, served by private side tracks. They are not leased to the railroads.

Held: or by any such laws which may subsequently be enacted and adopted by general rules of such district court; and such courts may, from time to time, by general rules, adopt such State laws as may be in force in such State in relation to remedies upon judgments, as aforesaid, by execution or otherwise; ” and Standing Rule 73 of the District Court which is: “ Subject to the provisions of the acts of Congress in relation…

Held: and as recently as in Educational Films Cory. v. Ward, 282 U. S. 379 , that an excise tax, imposed directly on the individual, is not invalid because indirectly it may burden either the state or the national government. See also Willcuts v. Bunn, 282 U. S. 216 , 225; Denman v. Slayton, 282 U. S. 514 .

Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court under which prior restraint on publication was found to violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment. This principle was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence. The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of "malicious" or "scandalous" newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment). Legal scholar and columnist Anthony Lewis called Near the Court's "first great press case". It was later a key precedent in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), in which the Court ruled against the Nixon administration's attempt to enjoin publication of the Pentagon Papers.

Held: conserved and protected for the benefit of their Indian owners. We need not inquire, as the Circuit Court of Appeals appears to have done, whether, had Barnett been mentally competent, the gifts named in his purported request could have been made from his trust fund. That is not this case.