Volume 313 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 313 of the United States Reports:

Held: that for the purpose of determining gain or loss on the sale of the property in question the basis to respondent by virtue of § 113 (a) (5) of the Revenue Act of 1928 ( 45 Stat. 791 ) was the fair market value of the property on . the date when the corpus was delivered to *13 respondent; and (2) that the property sold in February, 1930 had not been held by the taxpayer for more than two years and was, therefore, not…

Held: that the basis to respondents under § 113 (a) (5) of the Revenue Acts of 1928 and 1932 2 as respects sales made by them was the fair market value at the time when the securities were delivered to them by the trustees, no matter when or how the trustees or the executors may have obtained the securities;; (2) that in determining how long respondent Knox held securities for purposes of computing the term of his holding…

Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U.S. 69 (1941), was a Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the states, under the authority of the Tenth Amendment, do have the authority to govern their citizens' conduct in the sea, when not in conflict of federal law. The Appellant in this case challenged his conviction under a Florida law which prohibited citizens from using diving equipment to gather sponges in the Gulf of Mexico or the Straits of Florida. It also further allowed States to have a broad authority in deciding their own maritime boundary, when approved by Congress.

Held: the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not prevent a State from classifying businesses for taxation or impose any iron rule of equality. 10 Some occupations may be taxed though others are not. Some may be taxed at one rate, others at a different' rate. Classification is not discrimination. It is enough that those in the same class are treated with equality. That is true here.

Held: very recently, does not exist for the “adjudication of private rights”; it “acts in a public capacity to give effect to the declared public policy of the Act to eliminate and prevent obstructions to interstate commerce by encouraging collective bargaining.” National Licorice Co. v. Labor Board, 309 U. S. 350 , 362; and see Amalgamated Utility Workers v. Edison Co., 309 U. S. 261 .

Held: one judge dissenting, that the new § 1083, as applied to mortgage contracts previously made, violated the contract clause of the Federal Constitution. 284 N. Y. 13 , 29 N. E. 2d 449 . We granted the petition for certiorari because of the important constitutional question which was raised.

Olsen v. Nebraska, 313 U.S. 236 (1941), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Supreme Court of Nebraska misapplied the 14th amendment's Due Process Clause, when it was used to strike down a state statute limiting the amount of compensation that private employment agencies could withhold from employees.

Held: was such an advance in the art as to constitute invention.

Held: the obligation of petitioner to pay the interest accrued on the principal amount of'tax under the applicable provisions of the Revenue Act was not damage assessed against petitioner for its nonpayment of interest. Petitioner’s obligation was contractual to pay an amount found to be due from the taxpayer, and the suit against it is for a debt ex contractu, due and owing in conformity to the terms of the bond.

United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that the United States Constitution empowered Congress to regulate primary elections and political party nominations procedures, and that the constitutional "right of participation" extended to primary elections "is protected just as is the right to vote at the election, where the primary is by law made an integral part of the election machinery, whether the voter exercises his right in a party primary which invariably, sometimes or never determines the ultimate choice of the representative." The case centered on a 1940 Democratic primary election in Louisiana, in which 26-year-old Hale Boggs was running for a seat in the House of Representatives.

Held: with practical unanimity, that any substantial alteration by subsequent legislation of the rights of a purchaser at tax sale, accruing to him under laws in force at the time of his purchase, is void as impairing the obligation of contract. 12 *370 Appellee relies upon the circumstance that the State’s deed is a quitclaim.

Watson v. Buck, 313 U.S. 387 (1941), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Copyright Act does not authorize copyright holders to violate valid antitrust laws.

Marsh v. Buck, 313 U.S. 406 (1941), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held General statements that the law will be enforced if enacted are not threats against entities subject to the law.

United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409 (1941), is the fourth and final decision by the United States Supreme Court in a long battle between the Secretary of Agriculture and market agencies on the reasonable rates to be rendered for services. The Court held that, under the Packers and Stockyards Act, the Secretary of Agriculture had the authority and he properly determined the reasonable rates for services rendered by market agencies.

Held: in effect, that § 284 (b) (2) did not limit the refund sanctioned by § 284 (g) to the portion of the *446 tax paid within four years of respondent’s claim, and entered judgment as prayed in the complaint. 30 F. Supp. 724 . The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, accepting as the law of the case its earlier decision that the action was timely, despite petitioner’s argument to the contrary. 117 F. 2d 133 .

Klaxon Company v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Company, 313 U.S. 487 (1941), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court applied the choice-of-law principles of Erie Railroad v. Tompkins to conflicts between laws of different states for cases sitting in federal court on diversity jurisdiction. The court held that a federal court sitting in diversity must apply the choice-of-law doctrine of the forum state to choose between the forum state's law and the other state's law (as distinguished from the federal choice-of-law doctrines which had been used before Erie).