Volume 369 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 369 of the United States Reports:

Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95 (1962), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a binding arbitration stipulation in a collective bargaining agreement constitutes a limited, implied no-strike clause over the matters subject to arbitration. Therefore, a strike to settle a dispute subject to mandatory arbitration was unprotected.

Public Affairs Associates, Inc. v. Rickover, 369 U.S. 111 (1962), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the circuit court's decision should be vacated because the facts of the case were too unclear. Remanded to district court to create an "adequate and full-bodied record.".

Held: on August 25, an indictment against DiBella was returned in the same district. The motion was ultimately denied, without prejudice to renewal at trial. 178 F.Supp. 5.

United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Ideal Cement Co., 369 U.S. 134 (1962), is a United States Supreme Court case which vacated a lower appellate court decision, holding that federal courts should abstain from ruling on the constitutionality of a state tax issue that state courts should determine.

Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962), was a Supreme Court case in which the court held that acquittals in criminal cases are final even if issued by mistake. While the protection from double jeopardy did not get incorporated to apply to the state governments until 1969 (see Benton v. Maryland), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prevented the Federal Government from bringing a defendant to trial twice for the same charge. In this case, the trial judge responded to prosecutorial misconduct by directing the jury to issue a verdict of acquittal rather than declaring a mistrial.

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that redistricting qualifies as a justiciable question under the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, thus enabling federal courts to hear Fourteenth Amendment-based redistricting cases. The court summarized its Baker holding in a later decision as follows: "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the authority of a State Legislature in designing the geographical districts from which representatives are chosen either for the State Legislature or for the Federal House of Representatives." (Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963)). The court had previously held in Gomillion v.

Held: however, that since the 'warranty of workmanlike service extends to the handling of cargo * * * as well as to the use of equipment incidental to cargo handling' (Waterman S.S. Corp. v. Dugan & McNamara, 364 U.S. 421 , 423, 81 S.Ct. 200, 201, 5 L.Ed.2d 169), petitioner was liable, as a matter of law, to respondents.

Held: however, that § 349 (a) (10) was unconstitutional, and that consequently the appellee’s citizenship had not been divested. The court accordingly entered a judgment declaring the appellee to be a citizen of the United States and enjoining the Secretary of State from denying him a passport on the ground that he is not a citizen. Cort v. Herter, 187 F. Supp. 683 . This is a direct appeal from that judgment.

from pages 438-440 intentionally omitted] Bennett Boskey, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner. Carl W. Belcher, Washington, D.C., for the respondent. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 Tried and convicted in a Federal District Court for an offense against the United States, petitioner applied for leave to appeal his conviction to the Court of Appeals in forma pauperis. His application was denied.

Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (1962), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a transfer to a venue with personal jurisdiction is proper even if the court the case transferred from did not have personal jurisdiction. The court that receives such a transfer must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant per Hoffman v. Blaski.

Held: by a divided vote, that the full rental payments were deductible as expenses for 'medical care' within the meaning of § 213. 289 F.2d 291 .

Held: after discussion, that the shipowner should be permitted to offset potential earnings, the seaman having failed to establish that he could not have secured work. The seaman had done some work during the period, and had not sought maintenance for the days he was actually employed. The same court subsequently ruled that under Wilson a recuperating seaman must account for actual earnings.

Beck v. Washington, 369 U.S. 541 (1962), was a United States Supreme Court case which ruled that intensive and voluminous news coverage in the vicinity where the defendant was indicted and tried did not violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590 (1962), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether a town ordinance regulating a use of a property was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, finding the law in question was constitutional as an exercise of the town's police powers.

Held: a plain denial of that process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to our Federal Constitution. I would reverse the conviction. Mr. Justice Harlan seems to question the relation of the questions asked by the Committee with the subject matter of the state indictment (see pp. 617-618, ante).

Held: a state court is without power to hold one in contempt 1 for violating an injunction that the state court had no power to enter by reason of federal pre-emption.

Held: the judge “is not a mere moderator, but is the governor of the trial for the purpose of assuring its proper conduct . . . .” Quercia v. United States, 289 U. S. 466, 469 (1933); Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 82 (1942).

from pages 749-750 intentionally omitted] Joseph A. Fanelli, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Kevin T. Maroney, Washington, D.C., for respondent. No. 9: Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Bruce J. Terris, Washington, D.C., for respondent. No. 10: Gerhard P. Van Arkel, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. J. William Doolittle, Jr., Washington, D.C., for respondent. No. 11: Harry I. Rand, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. J.

Held: notwithstanding the *884 fact that the Court found that the legend carried upon said sign was true and that S. J. Curry & Company was not paying the prevailing wage in the area even though it had executed a contract with the City of Atlanta for said construction which contract contained the provision: 'Wages will conform with those being paid on similar types of work in the Atlanta area.’ Edwin Pearce and John S.…