Volume 311 — United States Reports

Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940), is a famous and commonly used case in civil procedure classes in the United States for teaching that res judicata does not apply to an individual whose interests were not adequately represented in a prior class action. The case was successfully argued by the civil rights attorney Earl B. Dickerson. The facts of the case dealt with a racially restrictive covenant, which barred African Americans from purchasing or leasing land in the Washington Park Subdivision of Chicago's Woodlawn neighborhood. A prior class action lawsuit, Burke v.

United States v. Stewart, 311 U.S. 60 (1940), was a United States Supreme Court case expansively interpreting a definition of the term "income" for the purpose of tax liability.

Held: to have assisted the formation.of a union even though the acts of the so-called agents were not expressly authorized or might not be attributable to him on strict application of the rules of respondeat superior.

Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112 (1940), is an opinion of the United States Supreme Court which further developed the “fruit-and-tree” metaphor established in Lucas v. Earl. Horst is the leading case that applies the assignment of income doctrine to income from property.

Held: or controlled” by the city shall be excluded. So far as appears, the claims held by the Crummer interests were not owned by or held for the city. Yet it is by no means clear that they were not “controlled” by the city within the meaning of the Act. Claims held by a city’s fiscal agent presumptively would ¡Seem to fall in that prohibited category.

Held: invention in Gulick and Maynard, absent the flexible webs, and in Jardine without the inclusion of the surrendered flexible web feature in the patented combination, it does not appear why the patent office allowed the broad claims after rejecting the narrower ones.

Held: they may be, as are petitioners, others than the public bodies named in the statute as appropriate plaintiffs. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 283 U.S. 380, 393, 394 . And they may maintain the suit although the injury which they allege is not strictly an actionable wrong independently of the paragraphs in question. *311 Western Pacific R. Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 284 U.S. 47 .

United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., 311 U.S. 377 (1940), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a waterway that could be made available for navigation in interstate commerce with reasonable improvements is a navigable water of the United States. Whether or not Congress has actually contemplated or approved such improvements to the waterway is irrelevant.

Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 (1940), was a U.S. legal case in which both parties were residents of Wyoming. However, the defendant, Meyer, at the time of the suit was served personally in Colorado. In the subsequent trial he collaterally challenged the ruling in WY citing the court's previous holding in Pennoyer v Neff. The U.S. Supreme Court found that individuals can be sued in the state of their domicile for all claims.

Held: (2) that it appeared affirmatively that'no debt was owing to the plaintiffs by Z. E. G., and (3) that the plaintiffs had not stated facts sufficient to entitle them to equitable relief under the provisions of the Act.

Held: and the claimed fair cash valuó of their’ stock. The corporation refused in Writing to pay the amount asked, but made no counter *534 offer. 'Neither party filed a petition for appraisal. After six months had elapsed, petitioners filed suit in the Court of Common Pleas, asking that judgment be rendered in their favor for the amounts originally claimed.