Volume 347 — United States Reports

Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1 (1954), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the word "knowingly" in the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, should extend to all reasonably foreseeable consequences, even ones not specifically intended.

from pages 17-20 intentionally omitted] No. 5: Mr. Emanuel Butter, New York City, for petitioner. Mr. Bernard Dunau, Washington, D.C., for respondent. No. 6: Mr. Bernard Dunau, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. John J. Manning, Boston, Mass., for respondents. No. 7: Mr. Julius Kass, New York City, for petitioner. Mr. Bernard Dunau, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Held: makes the 'purchaser' liable for the tax to the seller who is required 'to add to the sales price' and amount of the tax and collect it when the sales price is collected, whether the sale is for cash or on credit.

Held: use of such forced confessions to convict the confessors still amounts to compelling a person to testify against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment. 25 I cannot agree that the Amendment's guarantee against self-incrimination testimony can be spirited away by the ingenious contrivance of using federally extorted confessions to convict of state crimes and vice versa. 2 Licensing such easy evasion of the…

from pages 157-158 intentionally omitted] Messrs. D. H. Culton, Amarillo, Tex., Samuel A. L. Morgan, Houston, Tex., for appellants. Messrs. W. V. Geppert, John Ben Shepperd, Austin, Tex., for appellees.

Held: was entitled to rely on the schedule 'as the Secretary's latest determination—as a representation of the wages it would have to pay when the work was to be done.' 10 We granted review 11 because of the obvious importance of the decision in the administration of the Davis-Bacon Act. 7 The Act itself confers no litigable rights on a bidder for a Government construction contract. 12 The language of the Act and its…

Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954), was a copyright case decided by the United States Supreme Court. In an opinion written by Justice Stanley F. Reed, the Supreme Court held that the statuettes—male and female dancing figures made of semivitreous china—used as bases for fully equipped electric lamps were copyrightable, even though the lamp itself was a utilitarian mass-produced item.

from pages 239-240 intentionally omitted] Willard W. Gatchell, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. John W. Davis, New York City, for respondent. Mr. Justice BURTON delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 The most significant issue raised by this case is whether the Federal Water Power Act of 1920 1 has abolished private proprietary rights, existing under state law, to use waters of a navigable stream for power purposes. We agree with the Court of Appeals that it has not.

United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case, in administrative law, in which the Court held that administrative agencies in the Federal Government are obliged to follow their own regulations, policies and procedures. Under the Accardi doctrine, named after this case, federal agencies which do not follow their own regulations or procedures run the risk of having their actions invalidated if challenged in court. The Accardi doctrine was later strengthened in Service v. Dulles 354 US 363 (1957) and Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 US 535 (1959) Due to a ruling in United States v. Fausto, the doctrine generally does not apply to Federal employment decisions that are covered by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.

Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 (1954) was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that ruled 5-4 that a mail order reseller was not required to collect a use tax unless it had sufficient contact with the state.

Held: and it is but common sense to hold, that a physical asset may fluctuate in value according to the income it can be made to produce. A live horse is worth more than a dead one, though the physical object may be the same, and a smoothgoing automobile is worth more than an unassembled collection of all its parts.

Held: for purposes of a limitation proceeding, not a part of 'the interest' of the owner in the vessel. The basis of the decision was that Congress intended the Act to protect the investment of ship owners, and if the latter were prevented from indemnifying themselves from loss of their investment in the ship it would be contrary to the purpose of Congress as well as to the spirit of commercial jurisprudence.

Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954), was a landmark case, "the first and only Mexican-American civil-rights case heard and decided by the United States Supreme Court during the post-World War II period." In a unanimous ruling, the court held that Mexican Americans and all other nationality groups in the United States have equal protection under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren. This was the first case in which Mexican-American lawyers had appeared before the Supreme Court.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that ruled that U.S. state laws establishing racial segregation in public schools violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, even if the segregated facilities are equal in quality. The decision partially overruled the Court's 1896 decision Plessy v. Ferguson, which had ruled that racial segregation laws were constitutional as long as the facilities for each race were equal, a doctrine that had come to be known as "separate but equal". The Court's unanimous decision in Brown and its related cases paved the way for integration and was a major victory of the civil rights movement, and it became a model for many future impact litigation cases.

Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution prohibits segregated public schools in the District of Columbia. Originally argued on December 10–11, 1952, a year before Brown v. Board of Education, Bolling was reargued on December 8–9, 1953, and was unanimously decided on May 17, 1954, the same day as Brown. The Bolling decision was supplemented in 1955 with the second Brown opinion, which ordered desegregation "with all deliberate speed".

from pages 535-536 intentionally omitted] Mr. Robert L. Stern, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Mr. Richard W. Lund, Beverly Hills, for appellee. Mr. Justice BURTON delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 The principal question for decision is whether the Defense Production Act of 1950 1 authorized the President to apply administrative action to the enforcement of its wage stabilization provisions.

United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612 (1954), was a U.S. Supreme Court case applied directly to the Regulation of Lobbying Act.

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, 347 U.S. 672 (1954), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that sale of natural gas at the wellhead was subject to regulation under the Natural Gas Act. Prior to this case, independent producers sold natural gas to interstate pipelines at unregulated prices with any subsequent sales for resale being regulated. The State of Wisconsin sought to close this regulatory loophole in order to keep consumer prices low. Natural gas producers argued that wellhead sales were exempt from federal regulation as "production and gathering." Below, the Federal Power Commission compiled an evidentiary record 10,000 pages long before deciding not to regulate wellhead sales.