Volume 324 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 324 of the United States Reports:

Held: following which the District Court dismissed the petition. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, one judge dissenting. 142 F. 2d 404 . The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted because of the importance of the problem in the administration of the Bankruptcy Act.

Held: in impounding the fund here involved, that since it was authorized by §§ 19 (b) and (c) of the Act to issue a stay pending review of the Commission’s rate order, it had a mandatory obligation as a court of equity “to determine to whom and in what amounts the distribution shall be made.” This holding was in accord with “the governing principle that it is the duty of a court of equity granting injunctive relief to do…

United States v. Carmen Beach, 324 U.S. 193 (1945), was a Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Mann Act's criminalization of human transportation involving interstate or foreign commerce "with intent that such individual engage in prostitution" applies even within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia.

Held: “The necessary implication is that if, under the Harter Act ... or the Limitation of Liability Act, . . . the United States as owner of a merchant vessel should not be able to show performance of the conditions upon which such statutory limitations of liability are granted, it must assume the personal liability for negligence in such cases exactly as a private owner would.” ( 272 U. S. 675 , 690-91.) *228 The Public…

Thomas Henry Robinson Jr. v. United States, 324 U.S. 282 (1945), was a Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that under the Federal Kidnapping Act which states, "the sentence of death shall not be imposed by the court if, prior to its imposition, the kidnapped person has been liberated unharmed", a defendant may receive the death sentence if their victim suffered from non-permanent injuries. Although the court ruled in this way, it did so mainly on the premise it did not feel it had sufficient reason to "nullify the clearly expressed purpose of Congress" in this case.

Held: that the sole object of the Grebe-Sanford *325 •process is simply to protect the well equipment from corrosion by adding an inhibiting agent to the hydrochloric acid solution. 2 Petitioner has consistently claimed, on the other hand, that the patent specifies three novel points which elevate the described process to the level of an invention: (1) the addition of an inhibiting agent to the hydrochloric acid solution…

Held: have sought only freedom from hostile acts from roving bands by the commitments for supplies. The treaties were made in the midst of civil war and before the outcome of that conflict was clear. Petitioners urge that recognition of the Indian title was inferred from the language of the Port Laramie treaty of September 17,1851, 11 Stat. 749 , Fort Berthold Indians v. United States, 71 Ct.

Held: Mr. Justice Harlan dissenting, that suppression of the patent was no defense; that the patentee’s “right can only retain its attribute of exclusiveness by a prevention of its violation.” Id., p. 430. I think it is time to be rid of that rule. It is inconsistent with the Constitution and the patent legislation which Congress has enacted.

Held: however, that for purposes of a suit for damages a rate was not necessarily illegal because it was the result of a conspiracy in restraint of trade. The legal rights of a shipper against a carrier in respect to a rate are to be measured by the published tariff.

United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499 (1945), is a 1945 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court involving the question whether the United States was liable under the Fifth Amendment for a "taking" of private property for a public purpose when it built a dam on navigable waters that raised the water level upstream to lessen the head of water at a power company’s dam, thereby decreasing the production of power by the company’s hydroelectric turbines. The Court’s opinion is notable because it considers whether the courts will provide a remedy because a property right has been invaded, or whether a property right exists because the courts will enforce it. This question has been compared with the dilemma found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro.

Held: without a dissenting voice, that things imported are imports entitled to the immunity conferred by the Constitution; that that immunity survives their arrival in this country and continues until they are sold, removed from the original package, or put to the use for which they are imported.

Held: and also thought Article 15 was not intended to cover such a dispute but only one as to changes, interpretation of the specifications and similar matters usually remitted to the judgment of an architect.

Held: ‘It is not every interference with property rights that is within the Fifth Amendment . . .

Held: that while Automotive was “morally certain that Thomasma’s story was true” there was no duty to report this uncorroborated information to either the District Attorney or the Patent Office.