Volume 383 — United States Reports

This is a list of all United States Supreme Court cases from volume 383 of the United States Reports:

United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966), is a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law. This case was later cited in KSR v. Teleflex as an example of a case satisfying the requirement for non-obviousness of a combination of known elements. It also features one of the great stories of patent litigation lore, with Adams's attorney utilizing an innovative and unique method of non-oral advocacy at oral argument in front of the Supreme Court.

from pages 53-54 intentionally omitted] Donald F. Welday, Detroit, Mich., for petitioner. Sol. Gen. Thurgood Marshall for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. Winston L. Livingston, Detroit, Mich., for respondents.

Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75 (1966), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107 (1966), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States pertaining to the civil commitment of prisoners at the end of their sentences. It held that statutory procedure in New York State that treated prisoners differently than non-prisoners in the civil commitment process were a violation of equal protection of the laws.

from pages 116-117 intentionally omitted] Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., for appellant. David B. Lockton, Indianapolis, Ind., for appellee, Clarence Ewell. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 Appellees Clarence Ewell and Ronald Dennis were indicted on December 14, 1962, for selling narcotics without the order form required by 26 U.S.C. § 4705(a) (1964 ed.). 1 The indictments, each alleging a single sale, did not name the purchasers.

Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. It held that protesters have a First and Fourteenth Amendment right to engage in a peaceful sit-in at a public library. Justice Fortas wrote the plurality opinion and was joined by Justice Douglas and Justice Warren. Justices Brennan and Byron White concurred. Justices Black, Clark, Harlan and Stewart dissented.

United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966), is a United States Supreme Court case.

from pages 190-191 intentionally omitted] No. 30: Eli A. Weston, Boise, Idaho, for petitioner. Charles Donahue, Washington, D.C., for respondent. No. 31: Bessie Margolin, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Lucius E. Burch, Jr., Memphis, Tenn., for respondents.

from pages 213-214 intentionally omitted] Arthur B. Dunne, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for the United States and Federal Maritime Commission. Edward D. Ransom, San Francisco, Cal., and Elkan Turk, Jr., for respondents.

from pages 234-235 intentionally omitted] John P. Schofield, New City, N.Y., and Eugene Gressman, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner. H. Richard Uviller, New York City, for respondents. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 Petitioner, a member of the New York City Police Department, was summarily discharged on July 15, 1964. On June 26 he had been subpoenaed before a New York County grand jury, known as the First June 1964 Grand Jury.

from pages 272-273 intentionally omitted] James B. Lewis, New York City, for petitioner. Jack S. Levin, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that rejected a challenge from the state of South Carolina to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required that some states submit changes in election districts to the Attorney General of the United States (at the time, Nicholas Katzenbach). The preclearance provisions were ruled constitutional and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enforced in full.

Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 383 U.S. 363 (1966), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure did not require courts to summarily dismiss fraud cases when the complaints were based on a thorough examination. In other words, the court was not required to dismiss a lawsuit simply because it had been designed by someone else on behalf of a plaintiff who was not sophisticated enough to have done it alone.

Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966), is a United States Supreme Court decision clarifying a holding regarding obscenity made a decade earlier in Roth v. United States (1957).

Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the First Amendment to federal obscenity laws. One of a trio of cases (with Memoirs v. Massachusetts and Mishkin v. New York released on the same day), Ginzburg was part of the Supreme Court's attempt to refine the definitions of obscenity after the landmark 1957 case Roth v. United States.

Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that a novel process for making a known steroid did not satisfy the utility requirement, because the patent applicants did not show that the steroid served any practical function. The Court ruled that "a process patent in the chemical field, which has not been developed and pointed to the degree of specific utility, creates a monopoly of knowledge which should be granted only if clearly commanded by the statute." Practical or specific utility, so that a "specific benefit exists in currently available form" is thus the requirement for a claimed invention to qualify for a patent. The case is known for the statement "a patent is not a hunting license."

Held: for purposes of a determination as to waiver of jurisdiction, *558 that no formal hearing is required and that the "full investigation" required of the Juvenile Court need only be such "as is needed to satisfy that court . . . on the question of waiver." (Emphasis supplied.) The authority of Wilhite , however, is substantially undermined by other, more recent, decisions of the Court of Appeals.

from pages 607-608 intentionally omitted] Robert N. Kharasch, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Richard A. Posner, Washington, D.C., for United States and Federal Maritime Commission, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court. J. Alton Boyer, Washington, D.C., for respondent, Flota Mercante Grancolombiana, S.A. Mr.

Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court found that Virginia's poll tax was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, eleven southern states established poll taxes as part of their disenfranchisement of most blacks and many poor whites. The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1964) prohibited poll taxes in federal elections; five states (Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia) continued to require poll taxes for voters in state elections. By this ruling, the Supreme Court banned the use of poll taxes in state elections.

United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in order for a United States district court to have pendent jurisdiction over a state-law cause of action, state and federal claims must arise from the same "common nucleus of operative fact" and the plaintiff must expect to try them all at once. This case was decided before the existence of the current supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court authored by Justice Potter Stewart, in which the court extended the protection of the 14th Amendment to citizens who suffer rights deprivations at the hands of private conspiracies, where there is minimal state participation in the conspiracy. The Court also held that there is a Constitutional right to travel from state to state.

United States v. Cecil Price, et al., also known as the Mississippi Burning trial or Mississippi Burning case, was a criminal trial where the United States charged a group of 18 men with conspiring in a Ku Klux Klan plot to murder three young civil rights workers (Michael Schwerner, James Chaney, and Andrew Goodman) in Philadelphia, Mississippi on June 21, 1964, during Freedom Summer. The trial, conducted in Meridian, Mississippi with U.S. District Court Judge W. Harold Cox presiding, resulted in convictions of 7 of the 18 defendants. Another defendant, James Edward Jordan, pleaded guilty and testified for the prosecution.