Volume 323 — United States Reports

Held: with the Government, that the seepage of the grout into areas outside that dry packed rendered the liquid method an unreliable measure for determining either the volume of the dry packing or the amount of the grout required for it. The court gave judgment accordingly, while allowing to petitioner other claims upon his contract with which we are not here concerned.

Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc, 323 U.S. 37 (1944), is a US labor law case, concerning the minimum wage.

Held: negatived consent and thereby the right to proceed summarily. Thus, what a bankruptcy court may do and what it may not do when a petition for a turnover order is resisted by an adverse claimant is clear enough. But whether or not *100 there was the necessary consent upon which its power to proceed may depend is, as is so often true in determining consent, a question depending on the facts of the particular case.

Held: the statute does not at all apply to one, like petitioner, not authorized to do intrastate business. Nor do they emerge until all other local Connecticut issues are decided against the petitioner. But even if the statute hits aspects of an exclusively interstate business, it is for Connecticut to decide from what aspect of interstate business she seeks an exaction.

Armour & Co v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126 (1944), is a US labor law case, concerning the minimum wage.

Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that an administrative agency's interpretative rules deserve deference according to their persuasiveness. The court adopted a case-by-case test, the Skidmore deference, which considers the rulings, interpretations, and opinions of the administrator. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Held: a representative chosen and the choice certified by the board. No election is now pending and there is no averment in the bill that an election is about to be held or that the railroad is about to commit any act in violation of the proscription of § 2 Third. All that the bill does is to recite what the railroad has heretofore done in advance of the election already held and the certification based upon it.

Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railway Co., 323 U.S. 192 (1944), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning U.S. labor law, specifically the responsibility of every formally recognized labor organization to equally represent all the members of their class or craft under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court ruled that the Act covered employees regardless of whether they were members of duly recognized labor union, concluding that powers which Congress delegates to other organizations through statutes also delegates a duty to uphold the Constitution.

Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, 323 U.S. 210 (1944), is a 1944 Supreme Court case. It involved a black man, Tom Tunstall, who was unfairly dismissed from his job because of his race.

Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld the exclusion of people of Japanese descent from the West Coast Military Area during World War II, an exclusion that led to the internment of Japanese Americans. The decision has been widely criticized, with some scholars describing it as "an odious and discredited artifact of popular bigotry" and "a stain on American jurisprudence". The case is often cited as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. In the aftermath of Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had issued Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, authorizing the U.S. War Department to create military areas from which any or all Americans might be excluded.

Wallace Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 323 U.S. 248 (1944), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court.

United States v. Johnson, 323 U.S. 273 (1944), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court declined to permit a prosecution in Delaware of defendants charged with violating the Federal Denture Act by sending denture in the mail from Illinois to Delaware, where they were received by a person not licensed to practice dentistry in Delaware. The Act prohibited the use of the mails or any instrumentality of interstate commerce "for the purpose of sending or bringing into" a state or territory any denture which had been cast by a person not licensed to practice dentistry in the state into which the dentures were sent.

Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944), was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Court unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States. Although the Court did not touch on the constitutionality of the exclusion of people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast, which it had found not to violate citizens' rights in the Korematsu v. United States decision on the same date, the Endo ruling nonetheless led to the reopening of the West Coast to Japanese Americans after their incarceration in camps across the U.S. interior during World War II.

Held: the trustee is without standing to assert alleged rights of the surety. Affirmed. Mr. Justice Black dissents. 1 Section 3477 of the Revised Statutes, 31 U. S. C. § 203 , declares that the assignment of any claim upon the Government shall be “absolutely null and void” unless made after the allowance of the claim and the issue of a warrant for its payment.

Held: if its effects are so complete as to deprive the owner of all or most of his interest in the subject matter, to amount to a taking. 5 But it is to be observed that whether the sovereign substitutes itself as occupant in place of the former owner, or destroys all his existing rights in the subject matter, the Fifth Amendment concerns itself solely with the “property,” i. e., with the owner's relation as such to the…

Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 386 (1945), was a patent-antitrust case that the Government brought against a cartel in the glass container industry. The cartel, among other things, divided the fields of manufacture of glass containers, first, into blown glass (allocated to Corning Glass Works) and pressed glass, which was subdivided into: products made under the suction process (allocated to Owens-Illinois Glass Co.), milk bottles (allocated to Thatcher Mfg. Co.), and fruit jars (allocated to Ball Bros. plus a fixed production quota for Owens-Illinois, and Hazel-Atlas Co.). The trial court found the cartel violative of the antitrust laws and the Supreme Court agreed that the market division and related conduct were illegal.

Held: and the government argues here, that it is solely the function of the judge finally to determine whether a single witness and sufficient corroborative evidence have been presented to sustain a conviction.

Held: and it is not denied here, that since the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act, railroads may be compelled to establish through routes 2 and to interchange their cars with each other, 3 both subject to reasonable terms.