Volume 377 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 377 of the United States Reports:

Held: following its construction of the statute in Upholsterers Frame & Bedding Workers Twin City Local No. 61, 132 N.L.R.B. 40, that 'by literal wording of the proviso (to Section 8(b)(4)) as well as through the interpretive gloss placed thereon by its drafters, consumer picketing in front of a secondary establishment is prohibited.' 132 N.L.R.B. 1172, 1177. 6 Upon respondents' petition for review and the Board's…

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964), was a 5–3 United States Supreme Court case that invalidated a law that stripped naturalized Americans of their citizenship as a result of extended or permanent residence abroad. Relying on the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, the court ruled it generally was unconstitutional to treat naturalized and natural-born citizens differently.

Held: one of federal law. It is true that this holding was based on the inclusion of the language in an interstate compact sanctioned by Congress under the Constitution. But such compacts do not present the only instance in which the question whether a State has waived its immunity is one of federal law.

Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not allow the government to elicit statements from a person, without their attorney present, after their Sixth Amendment right to counsel is enlivened.

Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218 (1964), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia's decision to close all local, public schools and provide vouchers to attend private schools were constitutionally impermissible as violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Held: substantive state law in this area must yield to federal limitations.

from pages 271-272 intentionally omitted] Sol. Gen. Archibald Cox, for appellant. Herbert Bergson, Washington, D.C., for appellees.

Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state cannot require an employee to take an unduly vague oath containing a promise of future conduct at the risk of prosecution for perjury or loss of employment, particularly where the exercise of First Amendment freedoms may thereby be deterred.

Held: with respect to state and federal courts, that "where the action first brought is in personam and seeks only a personal judgment, another action for the same cause in another jurisdiction is not precluded." The dictum from Princess Lida v. Thompson, 305 U. S. 456, 466 , which the Court quotes ( ante, p. 412), is to the same effect.

Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther, 377 U.S. 422 (1964), is a United States Supreme Court decision that extended the repair-reconstruction doctrine of Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. to enhancement of function.

J.I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that corporate shareholders have an implied private right of action to bring suit under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for materially false or misleading proxy statements. The court also held that federal courts may grant appropriate relief, including damages and rescission, in such suits.

from pages 477-478 intentionally omitted] Charles Hieken, Boston, Mass., for petitioners. Held: that since Ford infringed the patent by making and selling the top-structures without authority from the patentee, 4 persons who purchased the automobiles from Ford likewise infringed by using and repairing the structures; and hence Aro, by supplying replacement fabrics specially designed to be utilized in such infringing repair, was…

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the single-seat electoral districts of state legislative chambers must be roughly equal in population. Along with Baker v. Carr (1962) and Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), it was part of a series of Warren Court cases that applied the principle of "one person, one vote" to U.S. legislative bodies.

from pages 633-634 intentionally omitted] Leonard B. Sand, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Solicitor Gen. Archibald Cox for United States, amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. Irving Galt, New York City, for appellees. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 At issue in this litigation is the constitutional validity, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, of the apportionment of seats in the New York Legislature.

from pages 656-657 intentionally omitted] Alfred L. Scanlan, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Archibald Cox, Sol. Gen., for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. Robert S. Bourbon, Silver Spring, Md., for appellees. Theodore I. Botter, Hackensack, N.J., for State of New Jersey, as amicus curiae.

Davis v. Mann, 377 U.S. 678 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court which was one of a series of cases decided in 1964 that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population.

from pages 695-696 intentionally omitted] Frederick Bernays Wiener, Washington, D.C., for appellants. Vincent A. Theisen, Wilmington, Del., for appellees. Sol. Gen. Archibald Cox, for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. Mr.

from pages 713-714 intentionally omitted] George Louis Creamer, Denver, Colo., Charles Ginsberg, Denver, Colo., for appellants. Anthony F. Zarlengo and Stephen H. Hart, Denver, Colo., for appellees. Solicitor Gen. Archibald Cox for United States, amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.

Held: for Bertman to take his appeal. Thus, even though Bertman's abili y to protect himself against paying for another man's wrong depended on his having notice of the Government's appeal just as much as it depended on his having notice when he was sued in the first place, neither the statutes nor the rules required that he have notice in time to file his own appeal. 4 I am aware of the argument that an able, alert,…