Volume 355 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 355 of the United States Reports:

Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U.S. 28 (1957), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that perjury from a prosecution witness is a due process violation when the prosecutor knows the witness testimony is false.

Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago, or Times v. City of Chicago is the name of two cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1957 and 1961. Both involved the issue of limits on freedom of expression in connection with motion pictures. In both cases the court affirmed the right of local governments to engage in some form of censorship.

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that provided a basis for a broad reading of the "short and plain statement" requirement for pleading under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Held: without opinion, that petitioner's notice of appeal from the District Court, filed on July 8, 1957, was untimely. The Government has conceded that the Clerk of the District Court did not mail to petitioner or his attorney a notice of the entry of the order of June 14 denying petitioner's motion for a new trial and judgment of acquittal, as required by Rule 49 (c), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Held: “The verdict of acquittal was final, and could not be reviewed, on error or otherwise, without putting [the defendant] twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution.” And see Peters v. Hobby, 349 U. S. 331, 344-345 ; United States v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310 . *193 Using reasoning which purports to be analogous to that expressed by Mr. Justice Holmes in Kepner , the Government alternatively argues that…

McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220 (1957), was a case following in the line of decisions interpreting International Shoe v. Washington. The Court declared that California did not violate the Due Process Clause by entering a judgment upon a Texas insurance company who was engaged in a dispute over a policy it maintained with a California resident. The importance of this finding is highlighted by the facts of the case; mainly that International Life Insurance did no other business within the state of California besides maintaining this single policy, which the company became responsible for by its acquisition of another insurance company which previously had held the policy.

Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the defense of ignorance of the law when there is no legal notice. The court held that when one is required to register one's presence, failure to register may be punished only when there is a probability that the accused party had knowledge of the law before committing the crime of failing to register.

from pages 233-234 intentionally omitted] Mr. Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. George B. Christensen, Chicago, Ill., for respondent. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 This case presents an unusual question involving the integrity of a criminal trial in the federal courts. 2 The Solicitor General has filed a motion in this Court to remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

Held: any rule of court to the contrary notwithstanding * * *.' (Emphasis supplied.) While this Act was later restricted by interpretation, the validity of its application to future state practice was generally accepted by the courts.

Held: inter alia, that the ICC failed to make findings appropriate to show that the existing fares caused undue, unreasonable or unjust discrimination against interstate commerce.

from pages 339-341 intentionally omitted] Mr. Milton Pollack, New York City, for petitioner Lawn. Mr. Joseph Leary Delaney, New York City, for petitioners Giglio and Livorsi. Mr. Roger D. Fisher, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Mr.

One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371 (1958), is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court for LGBT rights in the United States. It was the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling to deal with homosexuality and the first to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality. The Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that the gay magazine ONE violated obscenity laws, thus upholding constitutional protection for pro-homosexual writing.

Held: however, without citation of any authority, that approval of the acquisition of the control of Central was not required by § 5(2) of the Act. 295 I.C.C. 11, 16-17. And the courts have not resolved that important question. 25 Moreover, assuming Commission approval is necessary at some time, must it come before the refinancing can be approved?

from pages 453-454 intentionally omitted] Mr. Dominick L. Manoli, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. Crampton Harris, Birmingham, Ala., for respondent.

Held: 'We agree with the contention of the parties and the examiner's conclusion that there is no such patent ambiguity in the permit as to warrant our going back of it and giving consideration to events prior to its issuance.' 63 M.C.C., at 409. Absent patent ambiguity, it is well established that the Commission will not refer to the underlying grandfather operation.