Volume 302 — United States Reports

Bogardus v. Commissioner, 302 U.S. 34 (1937), was a United States Supreme Court case discussing, under United States tax law, how to distinguish compensation from tax-exempt gifts under § 102(a). It is notable (and thus appears frequently in law school casebooks) for the following holdings: A payment cannot be both "compensation for personal service" within the meaning of § 22(a) of the Revenue Act of 1928 and a "gift" under (b)(3) of the same section. Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, distinguished.

Held: and it has more severely punished prison breaking by one undergoing imprisonment for grievous crime than if done by one held for a lesser offense. Prior to the statute de frangentibus prisonam of 1 Edw. II (1307) every prison breaking by the offender himself, whatever the crime for which he was committed, was a felony, punishable by “judgment of life *54 or member.” This severity was mitigated by the statute.

Held: that petitioner is not equitably entitled to recover overpayments of taxes upon the profits derived from the contract in certain years because the overpayments are exceeded by a tax which he should have paid on the profits realized in an earlier year. We may assume that, in the circumstances, equitable principles would preclude recovery in the absence of any statutory provision requiring a different result.

Held: officers and directors elected, and a resolution was passed authorizing the filing of a petition for the reorganization of respondent under § 77B of the Bankruptcy Act, 48 Stat. 912 ; 11 U. S. C. § 207 .

James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 (1937), is a 5-to-4 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that a state's corporate income tax did not violate the Supremacy Clause (Article Six, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution by taxing the Federal government of the United States. It was the first time the Court had upheld a tax on the federal government. The decision is considered a landmark in the field of federal tax immunity, underpins modern legal interpretations of the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution, and established the "legal incidence test" for tax cases.

Puerto Rico v. Shell Co. (P. R.), Ltd., 302 U.S. 253 (1937), is a Supreme Court of the United States case concerning Puerto Rico. The issue was whether a local ("insular") law could be pre-empted by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. It was also notable as being one of the first cases that determined that Puerto Rico can be treated as if a state for some purposes under the law. It has become a precedent for similar cases.

Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937), is an overturned United States Supreme Court decision which upheld the constitutionality of requiring the payment of a poll tax in order to vote in state elections.

Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy.

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 . . . This case is in principle the same as Northern Pacific v. Dept. of Public Works. ...

Leitch Manufacturing Co. v. Barber Co., 302 U.S. 458 (1938), is a 1938 decision of the United States Supreme Court extending the tie-in patent misuse doctrine to cases in which the patentee does not use an explicit tie-in license but instead relies on grants of implied licenses to only those who buy a necessary supply from it.

Held: in substance, that the competition proposed by the county was lawful and that even though the administrator were without authority to make the proposed loan and grant, no legal right of petitioners was thereby invaded. The opinion upon this branch of the case is in harmony with the views we have just expressed in Nos. 84 and 85; and it follows that the decree must be, and it is, Affirmed.

Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938), was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified what qualifies as an adjournment for determining whether a veto is as a pocket veto and therefore unable to be overriden. The Court held that the recess of a single chamber under Article I, Section 5, is not an adjournment. Unlike the Pocket Veto Case, Wright v. United States concerns situations where a single chamber of Congress has entered recess, as opposed to the adjournment of the full Congress.

Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 (1937), is a United States Supreme Court case that dismissed objections to the appointment of Justice Hugo Black for lack of standing.