Volume 338 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 338 of the United States Reports:

Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 6-3 that, while the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule was not a necessary ingredient of the Fourth Amendment's right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures. In Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), the Court held that as a matter of judicial implication the exclusionary rule was enforceable in federal courts but not derived from the explicit requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the use of a confession obtained through rigorous interrogation methods by law enforcement violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

Held: left to the Interstate Commerce Commission the determination of value “without the necessity of a reexamination by the court, when that determination is reached with material evidence to support the conclusion and in accordance with legal standards.” 318 U. S. at 472-473 .

Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case employing the "reasonableness test" in warrantless searches. The Court held that while the police need not always be factually correct in conducting a warrantless search, such a search must always be reasonable.

Hirota v. MacArthur, 338 U.S. 197 (1948), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that "the courts of the United States have no power or authority to review, to affirm, set aside or annul the judgments and sentences imposed on these petitioners by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and for this reason the motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus are denied".

Held: used, administered, liquidated, sold or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States.” October 29, 1947, the Custodian filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York his petition against the bank seeking summary enforcement of his order under § 17 of the Act, supra.

Held: that the findings of the Postmaster General must be set aside under the rule of the McAnnulty case.

Kingsland v. Dorsey, 338 U.S. 318 (1949), like Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., is another patent fraud decision of the United States Supreme Court growing out of the antitrust cartel case described in Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States. Kingsland is widely quoted for its statement that the prosecution of patent applications in the Patent Office "requires the highest degree of candor and good faith" because the Patent Office "must rely upon [patent attorneys'] integrity and deal with them in a spirit of trust and confidence.

Held: however, that failure of couplers to remain coupled until released constitutes or evidences a violation of the Act just as does their failure to couple upon impact or uncouple from the sides of cars.

Held: Congress has chosen to recognize such a distinction for tax purposes. The corporate tax is thus aimed primarily at the profits of a going concern.

Held: as succinctly stated in the headnote: “The selling of gas wholesale to local, independent distributors from a supply passing into and through the State in interstate commerce, does not become a local affair and subject to a local privilege tax merely because the vendor, to deliver the quantities sold, uses a thermometer and a meter and reduces the pressure.” In its argument to the Court, 284 U. S. at p. 42, the…

United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950), was a United States Supreme Court case that notably ruled that the executive and legislative branches have the inherent power to exclude immigrants from the United States, that courts lack jurisdiction regarding the deportation of individuals within the United States unless it is explicitly stated in law, and that the Constitution does not grant aliens any protections when trying to enter the United States. In a four-to-three decision, this case firmly demonstrates the plenary powers of Congress and the Executive Branch, as it is one of the first cases that bars the judicial review of executive or legislative orders of exclusion in most circumstances.

Held: that, there was no sufficient evidence to support the Board’s finding of Piedmont’s fitness and ability. This contention, like others, rests almost wholly on the argument that Piedmont had not applied for the particular routes awarded and thus could not have evidenced its ability to handle those routes.

Held: authorized requirement only of “special reports” supplemental to “annual reports” and could not be authority for requiring special reports supplemental to a report of compliance required by court decree in a § 5 case.

Held: however, that such bonds need not be excluded from computation of a justifiable state tax imposed on corporations created by or doing business within the state.

In Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U.S. 912 (1950), the United States Supreme Court held that denial of a writ of certiorari could not be interpreted as anything other than a signal that fewer than four justices deemed it desirable to review the decision of the lower court. Such a denial indicates nothing about the merits or demerits of a case.