Volume 291 — United States Reports

Held: the action of the court in such a matter is legislative rather than judicial, so that one who has not pursued the legislative process to a conclusion cannot turn to a court of equity for relief from a regulatory order which is not the final word of the constituted state authority.

Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that denying a criminal defendant permission to attend a viewing of the scene of the crime is not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process.

United States v. Chambers, 291 U.S. 217 (1934), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that federal courts lost jurisdiction over National Prohibition Act prosecutions when the Eighteenth Amendment was repealed, so all proceedings either ongoing or on appeal were void.

Alabama v. Arizona, 291 U.S. 286 (1934), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Alabama's investment in prison labor does not make its opposition to another states' laws limiting the sale of prison-made-goods justiciable.

Held: as the respondent argues here, that respondent’s practice does not hinder competition or injure its competitors, since they are free to resort to the same sales method; that the practice does not tend to create a monopoly or involve any deception to consumers or the public, and hence is riot an unfair method of competition within the meaning of the statute.

Held: one judge dissenting, that, although the District Court had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter, that court was not justified in granting an injunction; and it reversed the decree with directions to dismiss the bill, 63 F. (2d) 911 , for the following reasons: (a) That the proceedings in the District Court came within the inhibitions of Judicial Code, § 265, in that the effect of the decree was to…

Held: the language is conclusive. “ There can be no construction where there is nothing to construe.” United States v. Shreveport Grain Co., 287 U.S. 77 , 83, and cases cited.

Held: as respondent argues here, that the period for assessment and collection of the tax, which had been indefinitely extended by the terms of the first waiver, was terminated and the assessment barred on April 1, 1924, by a departmental ruling (Mimeograph 3085, II-l Cum.

Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that New York State could regulate the price of milk for dairy farmers, dealers, and retailers.

Held: over objections such as are now made, that the Commission has power not only to order divestment but to prescribe that it shall be done in a manner that will restore competition. Federal Trade Comm’n v. Western Meat Co., 272 U.S. 554 . . Here the Commission has held that the divestment was not a compliance with the statute.