Volume 351 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 351 of the United States Reports:

Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956), was a case in which United States Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant may not be denied the right to appeal by inability to pay for a trial transcript.

Held: in construing § 5 of the Trade Commission Act, that the use of a trade name that is similar to that of a competitor, which has the capacity to confuse, or deceive the public, may be prohibited by the Commission. Federal Trade Commission v. Algoma Lumber Co., 291 U.S. 67 , 54 S.Ct. 315, 78 L.Ed. 655; Juvenile Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 9 Cir., 289 F. 57.

Held: "But, the protection afforded by the requirement of an affidavit of good cause would be seriously impaired if the defendant in a denaturalization action could not examine it and test its sufficiency by motion before trial."

Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 351 U.S. 115 (1956) and 367 U.S. 1 (1961), was a federal court case in the United States involving the compelled registration of the Communist Party of the United States, under a statute requiring that all organizations determined to be directed or controlled by the "world Communist movement" publicly disclose detailed information as to their officers, funds, and membership.

Held: based upon its analysis of Louisiana law, that prior notice to petitioner was not a prerequisite to an appropriation of its timber for levee purposes. We ordinarily accept the determinations of the Courts of Appeals on questions of local law, and we do so here.

from pages 225-226 intentionally omitted] Mr.Lester P. Schoene, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Mr. Edson Smith, Omaha, Neb., for appellees. Mr. Robert A. Nelson, for State of Nebraska, amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.

Commissioner v. LoBue, 351 U.S. 243 (1956), was a case before the United States Supreme Court in which the court held that the transfer of stock to the employee for less than its value was taxable compensation, notwithstanding the employer's purpose to confer a proprietary interest on the employee.

Held: 'is whether some additional restraint destructive of competition is occasioned.' 5 11 The case then proceeded to trial before another district judge, who concurred in the 'ruling that fair trade price fixing by a producer-wholesaler was not per se illegal under the Sherman Act,' and held that the Government's evidence did not establish an 'additional restraint' within the meaning of the test previously enunciated in…

from pages 345-346 intentionally omitted] MessersWill Maslow, New York City, John Caughlan, Seattle, Wash., for petitioner. Mr.John V. Lindsay, New York City, for respondent.

Kinsella v. Krueger, 351 U.S. 470 (1956), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, the Court recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty, although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement, not a "treaty" in the U.S. legal sense, and the agreement itself has never been ruled unconstitutional.

Held: in separate decisions, that the Act applied to each of the respondents. 2 We granted certiorari, 350 U.S. 818, 76 S.Ct. 79, because the cases involve interpretation of an important federal statute governing railroad employer obligations to its injured employees. 5 In the Eufrazia and Eelk cases, the Supreme Court of California simply entered an order reversing the decisions of the trial court.

Held: one of which is the “complete and unswerving loyalty” standard recited in the first “Whereas” clause of the preamble. Confirmation of this reading of the Order is found in its history. Exec. Order No. 9835, supra, as amended by Exec. Order No. 10241, 16 Fed.

De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570 (1956), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held after the death of an author, the widow and children are eligible to renew copyright, equally as a class. Additionally, conditional on state laws, illegitimate children are also eligible for a share of the copyright.