Volume 380 — United States Reports

Held: 36 'In the practical administration of the act the officers of the land department have adopted and given effect to the latter view. They adopted it before the present controversy arose or was thought of, and, except for a departure soon reconsidered and corrected, they have adhered to and follow it ever since. Many outstanding titles are based upon it and much can be said in support of it.

Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case that ended government-operated rating boards with a decision that a rating board could only approve a film and had no power to ban a film. The ruling also concluded that a rating board must either approve a film within a reasonable time, or go to court to stop a film from being shown in theatres. Other court cases determined that television stations are federally licensed, so local rating boards have no jurisdiction over films shown on television. When the movie industry set up its own rating system—the Motion Picture Association of America—most state and local boards ceased operating.

Held: and it is contended here, that even if the Attorney General did have power to file this suit on behalf of the United States, as we have held he did, nevertheless he was without power to make the State a party defendant.

Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145 (1965), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with an "interpretation test" permitted by the Louisiana Constitution of 1921 alleged to deprive Louisiana Negroes of voting rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1971(a) and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

Held: 5 'The statute is limited to one who has a then present legal interest in the buying corporation and does not include one whose only interest is in the outcome of what may have been an illegal and illicit plan to siphon off for his personal benefit property of the Boston and Maine Railroad through the medium of International.' 225 F.Supp., at 578. 6 A criminal statute is to be construed strictly, not loosely.

United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the exemption from the military draft for conscientious objectors could be reserved not only for those professing conformity with the moral directives of a supreme being but also for those whose views on war derived from a "sincere and meaningful belief which occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those" who had routinely gotten the exemption.

Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court regarding the legality of a struck jury.

Textile Workers v. Darlington Manufacturing Co., 380 U.S. 263 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held: 1. It is not an unfair labor practice for an employer to close his entire business, even if the closing is due to anti-union animus. Pp. 380 U. S. 269-274. 2. Closing part of a business is an unfair labor practice under § 8(a)(3) of the Act if the purpose is to discourage unionism in any of the employer's remaining plants and if the employer may reasonably have foreseen such effect. Pp. 380 U. S. 274-275. 3.

Held: two members dissenting, that the respondents' continued operations with temporary replacements constituted a "critical difference" from Buffalo Linen —where all members of the employer group shut down operations—and that in this circumstance it was reasonable to infer that the respondents did not act to protect the multiemployer group, but "for the purpose of inhibiting a lawful strike." 137 N. L. R. B., at 76.

American Ship Building Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 380 U.S. 300 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that lockouts are not considered unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.

Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, 380 U.S. 374 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case.

Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of to confront accusers in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that, in criminal prosecutions, the defendant has a right "...to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor..." In this case, a person arrested in Texas for robbery was deprived of the ability to cross-examine a witness when the lower court allowed the introduction of a transcript of that witness's earlier testimony at a preliminary proceeding instead of compelling attendance by the witness at trial.

Held: '(f)ailure to bring the action within the time prescribed extinguished the cause of action.' 332 F.2d at 530.

Held: in light of the unarticulated bases of decision, and what appeared to it to be inconsistent determinations approving units requested by the union, that the only conclusion that it could reach was that the Board has made the extent of organization the controlling factor, in violation of the congressional mandate.

Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court further refined the Erie doctrine regarding when and by what means federal courts are obliged to apply state law in cases brought under diversity jurisdiction. The question in the instant case was whether Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing service of process should yield to state rules governing the service of process in diversity cases. The Court ruled that under the facts of this case, federal courts shall apply the federal rule. The decision was drafted by John Hart Ely, who was then a law clerk for Earl Warren.

Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case brought forth by Dr. James Dombrowski along with William Kunstler, founder of the Center for Constitutional Rights, against the governor of Louisiana, law enforcement officers, and the chairperson of the state's Legislative Joint Committee on Un-American Activities for prosecuting or threatening to prosecute his organization under several state subversion statutes.

Texas v. New Jersey, 380 U.S. 518 (1965), is a United States Supreme Court decision handed down on February 1, 1965. Concerning the authority of the state to escheat, or take title to, unclaimed personal property, the Court was petitioned, under its power of original jurisdiction, to adjudicate a disagreement between three states, Texas, New Jersey, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, over which state had the jurisdiction to escheat intangible personal property, such as uncashed checks. Recognizing the lack of any extant constitutional or statutory formula to decide jurisdiction, the Warren Court accepted the case, assigning a Special Master to compile evidence and recommend a solution that the states could use for similar cases in the future.

Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that Virginia's partial elimination of the poll tax violated the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that failure to provide notice of pending adoption proceedings to the adversely situated biological parent is a violation of due process.

from pages 563-565 intentionally omitted] Wayne G. Barnett, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. William H. Kinsey, Portland, Or., for respondents.

FTC v. Consolidated Foods Corp., 380 U.S. 592 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a court may consider post-acquisition evidence of the effect of a merger upon market competition when determining whether a merger violated antitrust law, but that consideration must not be conclusive on its own.

Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, by a 6–2 vote, that it is a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights for the prosecutor to comment to the jury on the defendant's declining to testify, or for the judge to instruct the jury that such silence is evidence of guilt.

Held: 39 T.C. 257, but the Court of Appeals agreed with the contractors. 330 F.2d 161 . We granted certiorari in No. 134, 379 U.S. 812, 85 S.Ct. 43, 13 L.Ed.2d 26, and in No. 237, 379 U.S. 886, 85 S.Ct. 157, 13 L.Ed.2d 91, and consolidated them for argument.

from pages 650-652 intentionally omitted] James L. Highsaw, Jr., Washington, D.C., for petitioner in No. 138. Stuart Bernstein, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner in No. 139. Alex L. Arguello, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent in Nos. 138 and 369.

Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Commission, 380 U.S. 685 (1965), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the comprehensive federal regulatory regime for trade on Indian reservations preempted a state income tax on that trade.

One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 (1965), was a Supreme Court of the United States case handed down in 1965. The Court ruled that civil forfeiture could not apply where the evidence used to invoke the forfeiture was obtained illegally.