Volume 357 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 357 of the United States Reports:

Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63 (1958), affirmed on rehearing, 362 U.S. 145 (1960), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a taxpayer generally must pay the full amount of an income tax deficiency assessed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue before he may challenge its correctness by a suit in a federal district court for refund under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). The Supreme Court agreed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, stating that the full payment rule requires the entire amount of an asserted deficiency to be paid before a refund suit may be maintained.

from pages 76-78 intentionally omitted] Mr. Joseph F. Grossman, Chicago, Ill., for the petitioner. Mr. Amos M. Mathews, Chicago, Ill., for the respondents. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 Chicago is one of the Nation's great rail centers. Each day thousands of railroad passengers travel through that City on continuous journeys from one State to another.

Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the court held that the government violated the right to travel and First Amendment free speech rights when it suspended people's passports based on their political speech. It was the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court made a distinction between the constitutionally protected substantive due process freedom of movement and the right to travel abroad (subsequently characterized as "right to international travel").

Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (1958), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court considered whether a district court could dismiss a case based on the petitioner's failure to comply with the court's order to produce records of the petitioner's Swiss bank account, an act which would have amounted to a violation of Swiss law.

Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding personal jurisdiction in the context of assets held in trust.

from pages 275-276 intentionally omitted] Mr. B. Abbott Goldberg, San Francisco, Cal., for appellants. Mr. John F. Davis, Washington, D.C., for the United States, amicus curiae. Messrs. Harry W. Horton, El Centro, Cal., Alvin J. Rockwell, San Francisco, and Denslow Green, Madera, Cal., for appellees. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 These four cases present issues of basic importance to the federal reclamation laws.

Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301 (1958), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that one could not lawfully be arrested in one's home by officers breaking in without first giving one notice of their authority and purpose.

from pages 320-321 intentionally omitted] Mr. Northcutt Ely, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. Oscar H. Davis, Washington, D.C., for the United States and Federal Power Commission as amicus curiae, by leave of Court. Mr. John S. Lynch, Jr., and E. P. Donnelly, Olympia, Wash., for respondents.

Wiener v. United States, 357 U.S. 349 (1958), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that the President's plenary removal authority does not include an officer of the United States who exercises quasi-judicial authority. The legislative framework established for the War Claims Commission suggests that Congress intended to provide a degree of insulation from executive influence to ensure impartial adjudication. This case reaffirms the division of powers principle.

Held: which the Steelworkers lost. In a proceeding before the Board commenced at the instance of the Steelworkers, the company was charged with a number of violations of the Act alleged to have taken place both before and after the election, including the discriminatory application of the no-solicitation rule.

Held: 4—3, that information extracted from a person by state authorities under threat of punishment could be used to convict him of a federal crime. 2 The passage of time has only strengthened my conviction that this result is thoroughly contrary to the guarantee of the Fifth Amendment that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself, at least in a federal prosecution.

Ashdown v. Utah, 357 U.S. 426 (1958), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the officers involved in the case did not take advantage of petitioner or overtake her will when eliciting the confession. This case was one of the last decisions by the Court about confession evidence that preceded important new rules in Escobedo v. Illinois.

Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433 (1958), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that limited criminal suspects' constitutional right to counsel before trial, refusing to overturn a subsequent conviction without a showing that the refusal of counsel had a coercive or prejudicial effect. This holding was later overturned by Escobedo v. Illinois and Miranda v. Arizona.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court. Alabama sought to prevent the NAACP from conducting further business in the state. After the circuit court issued a restraining order, the state issued a subpoena for various records, including the NAACP's membership lists. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Alabama's demand for the lists violated the right of due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

from pages 468-469 intentionally omitted] Mr. Leonard B. Boudin, New York City, for appellant. Mr. Daniel T. Scannell, New York City, for appellees. Mrs. Ruth Kessler Toch, Albany, N.Y., for the State of New York, as amicus curiae, with consent of appellees.

Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which, along with its companion cases Prince v. City and County of San Francisco and First Unitarian Church v. Los Angeles (separately decided), held that a loyalty oath requirement for seeking a property tax exemption violated the procedural due process rights of applicants who refused to sign the oath under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it placed the burden of proof to show that their speech was not criminal on the applicants, rather than the state.

from 560 intentionally omitted] Mr. Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. John F. Langs, Detroit, Mich., for respondent National Casualty co. Mr. J. D. Wheeler, for respondent American Hospital and Life Ins.