Volume 348 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 348 of the United States Reports:

Held: clearly authorizes '(a)n issue of fact as to the verity of such record or as to the identity of the accused with the person named in such record * * *.' Tipton v. State, 160 Tenn. 664, 678, 28 S.W.2d 635, 639. Proof of the defendant's prior convictions is '* * * a condition precedent to the imposition of the increased punishment provided.' Tipton v. State, supra.

Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that interpreted the Takings Clause ("nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation") of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court voted 8–0 to hold that private property could be taken for a public purpose with just compensation. The case laid the foundation for the Court's later important public use cases, Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984) and Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). Critics of recent occurrences of eminent domain uses trace what they view as property rights violations to this case.

Watson v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., 348 U.S. 66 (1954), was a conflict of laws case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Held: I think correctly, that a soldier injured in a hospital cannot also sue for damages under the Tort Claims Act. Feres v. United States, 340 U. S. 135 . But the Court now holds that a veteran can. To permit a veteran to recover damages from the Government in circumstances under which a soldier on active duty cannot recover seems like an unjustifiable discrimination which the Act does not require.

from pages 121-123 intentionally omitted] Messrs.Sumner M. Redstone, Peyton Ford, Washington, D.C., for petitioners. Mr. Marvin E. Frankel, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 Petitioners, husband and wife, stand convicted under § 145 of the Internal Revenue Code 1 of an attempt to evade and defeat their income taxes for the year 1948.

from 147-148 intentionally omitted] Mr.W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., Boston, Mass., for petitioner. Mr.Marvin E. Frankel, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 This is the third of the net worth cases and the first dealing with the Government's use of extrajudicial statements made by the accused.

United States v. International Boxing Club of New York, 348 U.S. 236 (1955), often referred to as International Boxing Club or just International Boxing, was an antitrust decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. By a 7–2 margin, the justices ruled that the exemption it had previously upheld for Major League Baseball was peculiar and unique to that sport and that it did not apply to boxing. Since it met the definition of interstate commerce, the government could therefore proceed with a trial to prove IBCNY and the other defendants had conspired to monopolize the market for championship boxing in the United States. It was the first time another sport had argued it was covered by the same exemption as baseball by virtue of being a professional sport.

Tee-Hit-Ton v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (1955), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a Tribal nation's right of occupancy (or "aboriginal title") may be eliminated by the United States without any compensation. Breaking with earlier cases, the court said the Natives' right of occupancy was lesser than a vested property right that the fee simple owner of the land would have within the American property system.

Wilburn Boat Company v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, 348 U.S. 310 (1955), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state law, rather than federal admiralty law, should govern marine insurance contracts.

Held: relying largely on common law principles of contract law, that there was no government contract to renegotiate. The existence or nonexistence of profits was wholly irrelevant to the holding.

Held: 'That the court had no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the counterclaim against the Belgian State. A State which is entitled to claim immunity from foreign jurisdiction does not lose this right by the fact that it submits to that jurisdiction in another suit.

Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375 (1955), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a draft board's rejection of Jehovah's Witness claim of conscientious objector status as lacking sincerity.

Sicurella v. United States, 348 U.S. 385 (1955), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that willingness to fight in "theocratic" wars does not disqualify a Jehovah's Witness who would otherwise be eligible for exemption as a conscientious objector.

Simmons v. United States, 348 U.S. 397 (1955), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Jehovah's Witness was denied fair hearing because of failure to supply him with materials in his record.

Gonzales v. United States, 348 U.S. 407 (1955), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a Jehovah's Witness was denied fair hearing because of failure to supply him with materials in his record.

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), was an important income tax case before the United States Supreme Court. The Court held as follows: Congress, in enacting income taxation statutes that comprehend "gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever," intended to tax all gain except that which was specifically exempted. Income is not limited to "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." Although the Court used this characterization in Eisner v.

from 437-438 intentionally omitted] Mr.David E. Feller, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. Mahlon E. Lewis, Pittsburgh, Pa., for respondent. Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion in which Mr. Justice BURTON and Mr. Justice MINTON join. 1 Respondent is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of electrical equipment in interstate commerce.

Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483 (1955), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that state laws regulating business are subject to only rational basis review and that the Court need not contemplate all possible reasons for legislation.

Held: sua sponte, that, despite the action taken in the merger proceeding, this loss must be added to respondent's cost of service. The court therefore reversed the Commission's order and remanded the cause for further proceedings. 209 F.2d 717 . After reargument, the court reaffirmed its position. 209 F.2d 732.