Volume 298 — United States Reports

Wallace v. Cutten, 298 U.S. 229 (1936), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the authority of the United States Secretary of Agriculture under the Grain Futures Act was limited to prevent continued violation of the act, not past violations.

Carter v. Carter Coal Company, 298 U.S. 238 (1936), is a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which permits the United States Congress to "regulate Commerce... among the several States." Specifically, it analyzes the extent of Congress' power, according to the Commerce Clause, looking at whether or not they have the right to regulate manufacturing.

Held: “It is settled that in determining what the divisions should be, the Commission may, in the public interest, take into consideration the financial needs of a weaker road; and that it may be given a division larger than justice merely as between the parties would suggest 'in order to maintain it in effective operation as part of an adequate transportation system/ provided the share left to its connections is…

Held: is imposed on motor cars transported as are appellant’s, it is not inconsistent with the imposition of the flat permit fee, but supplementary to it. Repeal by implication is not favored, especially where the one Act follows close upon the other, at the same session of the legislature. Cf. Graham & Foster v. Goodcell, 282 U. S. 409 ; Rodgers v. United States, 185 U. S. 83 , 89; Beals v. Hale, 4 How. 37 , 53.

Held: that general damages should be *452 awarded on the basis of a reasonable royalty to be paid by the defendants upon their sales of the infringing product, whether gainful or the opposite, Cf. McKee Glass Co. v. H. C. Fry Glass Co., 248 Fed. 125 , 129. This royalty was ascertained to be $414,120.70. Nothing was said by the master as to an award of interest.

Held: all shares of appellee, also all those of the producing companies. By an Original Bill_filed 1930 (amended 1932), the United States instituted this proceeding against appellee, sole defendant, in the District Court, Northern Dis *498 trict of Illinois.

Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement District No. 1, 298 U.S. 513 (1936), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an insolvent state agency cannot declare bankruptcy. More particularly, Congress's powers under the Bankruptcy Clause cannot extend to state agencies in violation of federalism principles, and bankruptcy courts cannot establish jurisdiction over the state agencies where those principles have been violated. The modern municipal bankruptcy statute, Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, is constitutional.

Held: and dividends are declared. Dividends, so far as declared, have been paid out of the Boston account. Appellant owns practically all the stock of three subsidiaries. Two of them are engaged in cutting timber and manufacturing lumber—one in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana, and the other in South Carolina. The third subsidiary simply holds title to timber lands in Louisiana.

Held: in overruling the motion to dismiss the present suit, that the bill contains allegations of such material departures by Colorado and her water claimants from the earlier decree that she should be called upon to answer. Colorado did answer; evidence was then taken and reported by commissioners; and the cause has since been submitted on briefs and oral argument.

Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo, 298 U.S. 587 (1936), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that New York State's minimum wage law for women violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by infringing upon the freedom of contract between employers and adult female employees. The Court reaffirmed its prior holding in Adkins v. Children's Hospital, which was overturned the very next year in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish in what has since become known as the switch in time that saved nine.