Volume 396 — United States Reports

Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ordered immediate desegregation of public schools in the American South. It followed 15 years of delays to integrate by most Southern school boards after the Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that segregated public schools were unconstitutional.

Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969), is a 1969 decision of the United States Supreme Court on the legal standard governing the obviousness of claimed inventions. It stands for the proposition that, when old elements are combined in a way such that they do not interact in a novel, unobvious way, then the resulting combination is obvious and therefore unpatentable.

from pages 87-88 intentionally omitted] Phylis Skloot Bamberger, New York City, for petitioner, James minor. Peter L. Strauss, Washington, D.C., for respondent, the United States in No. 189. David A. Diamond, New York City, for petitioner, Michael Buie. Joseph J. Connolly, Washington, D.C., for respondent, the United States in No. 271.

from pages 122-123 intentionally omitted] James van R. Springer, Washington, D.C., and Robert S. Edwards, Plant City, Fla., for petitioners. William Reece Smith, Jr., Tampa, Fla., and V. Carroll Webb, Tallahassee, Fla., for respondents. James F. Bell, Washington, D.C., for National Association of Supervisors of State Banks, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.

from pages 168-170 intentionally omitted] Daniel M. Friedman and Lawrence D. Hollman, Washington, D.C., for petitioners. Charles Patrick Ryan, Washington, D.C., for respondents. Edwin H. Amidon, Jr., Boston, Mass., for State of Vermont, as amicus curiae.

from pages 229-230 intentionally omitted] Allison W. Brown, Jr., Washington, D.C., for petitioners. John Charles Harris, Alexandria, Va., for respondents. Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, announced by Mr. Justice BLACK. 1 This case, which involves an alleged discrimination against a Negro family in the use of certain community facilities, has been here before.

Held: was inapplicable where the question sought to be raised was solely one of statutory interpretation, id., *301 at 197-199 , and where application of the doctrine would serve to deprive a criminal defendant of a defense to his prosecution, id., at 197 . The Department of Justice does not suggest that a registrant who has been declared a “delinquent” has administrative remedies for a review of that action.

from pages 346-347 intentionally omitted] Michael Meltsner, New York City, for appellants. Alfred L. Evans, Jr., Washington, D.C., for appellees. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 This case, a companion to Carter v. Jury Commission of Greene County, 396 U.S. 320 , 90 S.Ct. 518, 24 L.Ed.2d 549, involves a challenge to the constitutionality of the system used in many counties of Georgia to select juries and school boards.

from pages 375-376 intentionally omitted] Arnold I. Shure, Chicago, Ill., for petitioners. Robert A. Sprecher, Chicago, Edward N. Gadsby, Boston, Mozart G. Ratner, Washington, D.C., on the brief. Albert E. Jenner, Jr., Chicago, Ill., for respondents.

from pages 398-400 intentionally omitted] Josiah E. DuBois, Jr., Camden, N.J., for petitioner. Steven R. Rivkin, Washington, D.C., for Cleveland Burgess, as amicus curiae. Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 Petitioners was found guilty by a jury on four counts charging violations of the federal narcotics laws.

Held: 'we are of the opinion that the sole purpose for which the trust was created has become impossible of accomplishment and has been terminated.' Evans v. Newton, 221 Ga. 870, 871, 148 S.E.2d 329, 330 (1966).

United States v. ICC, 396 U.S. 491 (1970) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a merger of the Great Northern Railway Company and the Northern Pacific Railway Company did not violate antitrust laws due to the benefits of increased savings and efficient transportation outweighing the costs of decreased competition and job loss.

Held: would violate the terms of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c (1964 ed., Supp.