Volume 295 — United States Reports

Grovey v. Townsend, 295 U.S. 45 (1935), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held a reformulation of Texas's white primaries system to be constitutional. The case was the third in a series of Court decisions known as the "Texas primary cases". In Nixon v. Herndon (1927), Lawrence A. Nixon sued for damages under federal civil rights laws after being denied a ballot in a Democratic party primary election on the basis of race. The Court found in his favor on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, while not discussing his Fifteenth Amendment claim. After Texas amended its statute to authorize the political party's state executive committee to set voting qualifications, Nixon sued again; in Nixon v.

United States v. Creek Nation, 295 U.S. 103 (1935), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the compensation for land taken from the Creek Nation by the United States was the value of the land at the time of the taking, plus interest.

Held: that a taxpayer who, for the purpose of making a livelihood, devotes the major portion of his time to speculating on the stock exchange may treat losses thus incurred as having been sustained in the course of a trade or business. 2 Snyder, however, did not allege or attempt to prove that he had devoted the major part, or any substantial part, of his business day to his stock transactions.

Held: there can be no presumption of benefit. Holst v. LaGrange, 175 Ga. 402 , 404; 165 S. E. 217 . *171 No question is raised as to the competency of the proof which was offered, and evidently there is none. The ruling was simply that it was immaterial.

Held: construing § 33 (a) and (b), that the Compensation Act, called into action by her election, operated to transfer to the employer all her right of recovery under the Wrongful Death Act.

Held: is very similar to Pogson’s disclosure in 1921, which Stephens says does not describe the punch method.

Held: cannot, as against the claim of an innocent party, hold his money which has gone into its treasury by means of the fraud of its agent. United States v. State Bank, 96 U. S. 30 . While here the money was taken through mistake without any element of fraud, the unjust retention is immoral and amounts in law to a fraud on the taxpayer’s rights.

Held: however, that full protection could be accorded to seller and consumer if the regulatory Commission were permitted to discharge its proper function of prescribing a just schedule after the unlawful one had fallen. “ In the circumstances there was no occasion for the court to draw upon its extraordinary equity powers to attach any condition to its decree, and the condition which it did attach was an unwarranted…

Held: review of the commissioner’s decision ends when the court is assured that he has honestly considered all the evidence presented to him. Is the evidence sufficient to warrant petitioner’s removal? Should the commissioner’s findings be set aside for error in the admission of evidence?

Held: lands allotted in the right of deceased members. 5 Under § 22 the right of full-blood Indian heirs to alienate the inherited lands was subjected to the *411 restriction that the conveyance be approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The act of May 27, 1908, c. 199, 35 Stat. 312 , again revised the restrictions and practically substituted its § 1 for § 19 of the act of 1906, and its § 9 for § 22 of that act.

United States v. Mack, 295 U.S. 480 (1935), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment eliminated the state's authority to pursue criminal sanctions for violations; private parties' ability to condition contractual liability on the Eighteenth Amendment was unaffected.

A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated regulations of the poultry industry according to the nondelegation doctrine and as an invalid use of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. This unanimous decision rendered parts of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA), a main component of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, unconstitutional. The case from which the ruling stemmed was nicknamed the "Sick Chicken Case".

Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555 (1935), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the Frazier–Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act was an unconstitutional violation of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause because it interfered with farmers' property rights in contracts they made with the United States. This unanimous decision was one of the Court's many rulings that overturned President Roosevelt's New Deal.

Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled that the U.S. Congress may limit the power of the President of the United States to fire certain government officials, even though the president is the chief executive of the U.S. government. The Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to restrict the President's authority to dismiss the leaders of independent agencies that are "quasi-legislative" or "quasi-judicial" in nature. The case stemmed from President Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1933 dismissal of William E. Humphrey as a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Held: is to preserve the substance of the common-law right of trial by jury, as distinguished from mere matters of form or procedure, and particularly to retain the common-law distinction between the province of the court and that of the jury, whereby, in the absence of express or implied consent to the contrary, issues of law are to be resolved by the court and issues of fact are to be determined by the jury under…