Federal Reporter, Second Series
999 volumes · 508,028 opinions
173 opinions in Federal Reporter, Second Series with a Wikipedia-sourced synopsis — the cases notable enough that someone wrote an encyclopedia article about them.
- Ochs v. Commissioner (1952)195 F.2d 692
Ochs v. Commissioner, 195 F.2d 692 (2nd Cir.1952) was an income tax case decided by Judge Augustus Noble Hand.
- Gamco, Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Bldg., Inc. (1952)194 F.2d 484
Gamco, Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Building, Inc., 194 F.2d 484 (1st Cir. 1952), is a 1952 First Circuit decision in the United States.
- National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc. (1951)191 F.2d 594
National Comics Publications v. Fawcett Publications, 191 F.2d 594 (2d Cir. 1951). was a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a twelve-year legal battle between National Comics (also known as Detective Comics and DC Comics) and the Fawcett Comics division of Fawcett Publications, concerning Fawcett's Captain Marvel character being an infringement on the copyright of National's Superman comic book character. The litigation is notable as one of the longest-running legal battles in comic book publication history. The suit resulted in Fawcett Publications shuttering the Fawcett Comics division and cancelling all of its superhero-related publications, including those featuring Captain Marvel and related characters.
- Batman v. Commissioner (1951)189 F.2d 107
Batman v. Commissioner, 189 F.2d 107 (5th Cir. 1951), is a 1951 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the area of partnership taxation. It concerned a bid by a Texas Panhandle farmer to convert his farm into a family partnership by transferring some of its assets to his teenaged son. A three-judge panel unanimously affirmed the decision of the United States Tax Court that disallowed this.
- Perry v. Cyphers (1951)186 F.2d 608 · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Perry v. Cyphers 186 F.2d 608 (5th Cir. 1951) was a 1951 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that struck down Jim Crow legislation in Harrison County, Texas.
- Hitaffer v. Argonne Co. (1950)183 F.2d 811 · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Hitaffer v. Argonne Co., 183 F.2d 811 (D.C. Cir. 1950), was a case decided by the D.C. Circuit that first recognized a wife's right to bring a cause of action for loss of consortium.
- United States v. Drescher (1950)179 F.2d 863
United States v. Drescher, 179 F.2d 863 (2nd Cir. 1950) was a United States income tax case before the Second Circuit. The Court held as follows: The value of the employer-purchased annuities in question was taxable as part of taxpayer's gross income in the year in which the annuities were purchased. The annuities in question were nonassignable, and possession was retained by the employer until taxpayer reached age of retirement; and the employee's compensation was not reduced during these years, nor did he have election to receive in cash the amount paid.
- Westminster School Dist. of Orange County v. Mendez (1947)161 F.2d 774 · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Mendez, et al v. Westminster School District of Orange County, et al, 64 F.Supp. 544 (S.D. Cal. 1946), aff'd, 161 F.2d 774 (9th Cir. 1947) (en banc), was a 1947 federal court case that challenged Mexican remedial schools in four districts in Orange County, California. In its ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in an en banc decision, held that the forced segregation of Mexican American students into separate "Mexican schools" was unconstitutional because as US District Court Judge Paul J.
- Farid-Es-Sultaneh v. Commissioner (1947)160 F.2d 812 · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Farid-Es-Sultaneh v. Commissioner, 160 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1947) is a United States federal income tax case. It is notable (and thus appears frequently in law school casebooks) for the following holding: Appreciated property, transferred to a wife pursuant to an antenuptial agreement, was not a gift, but was consideration for which she sold her inchoate marital rights. This applies the general rule, that a taxpayer recognizes a gain on the transfer of appreciated property in satisfaction of a legal obligation. Therefore, the property's basis in her hands was not a "carryover" (gift) basis from her husband. Instead, the court set its basis at its fair market value.
- United States v. Carroll Towing Co. (1947)159 F.2d 169 · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F.2d 169 (2d. Cir. 1947), is a decision from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals that proposed a test to determine the standard of care for the tort of negligence. The judgment was written by Judge Learned Hand wherein he described what is now called the Hand formula, a classic example of a balancing test.
- United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (1945)148 F.2d 416 · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
United States v. Alcoa, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945), is a landmark decision concerning United States antitrust law. Judge Learned Hand's opinion is notable for its discussion of determining the relevant market for market share analysis and—more importantly—its discussion of the circumstances under which a monopoly is guilty of monopolization under section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
- Raytheon Production Corp. v. Commissioner (1944)144 F.2d 110 · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Raytheon Production Corp. v. Commissioner, 144 F.2d 110 (1st Cir. 1944), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 779 (1944) is a United States income tax case that discusses the tax deductibility of damages for loss of business good will. It included the following holdings: Under the tax code, business good will is not the present value of future profits, but present capital. Thus, damages for the destruction of goodwill (awarded under the Federal Antitrust Laws) are compensating for the destruction of a capital asset -- they are a "return" of this capital. It is settled law that, while a recovery (as court-ordered damages) of future profits is taxable, a recovery (as damages) of present capital is not.
- National Lockwasher Co. v. George K. Garrett Co. (1943)137 F.2d 255 · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
National Lockwasher Co. v. George K. Garrett Co., 137 F.2d 255 (3d Cir. 1943), is one of the earliest or the earliest federal court decision to hold that it is patent misuse for a patentee to require licensees not to use a competitive technology. Such provisions are known as "tie-outs."
- United States v. Crimmins (1941)123 F.2d 271 · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
United States v. Crimmins, 123 F.2d 271 (2d Cir. 1941), was a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit about conspiracy to transport stolen securities in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. § 415 (1940 ed.). John D. Crimmins, a lawyer practicing in Syracuse, New York, was convicted for his part in a conspiracy in which he bought stolen securities from an accomplice who also lived in New York. Crimmins appealed on the grounds that he did not know the bonds had been transported across state lines. Judge Learned Hand wrote the court's opinion.
- Kenan v. Commissioner (1940)114 F.2d 217 · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
In Kenan v. Commissioner, 114 F. 2d 217 (2d Cir. 1940), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit provided a broad definition of the term "sale or exchange." The Kenan court reviewed the Commissioner's finding of a $367,687.12 deficiency in the income taxes of the trustees. The trustees or taxpayers contended "that the delivery of the securities of the trust estate to the legatee was a donative disposition of property . . . and that no gain was thereby realized." The court pointed out that "the trustees had the power to determine whether the claim should be satisfied [in cash or securities]." Thus, "[i]f it were satisfied by a cash payment securities might have been sold on which . . .
- Detective Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publications, Inc. (1940)111 F.2d 432 · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Detective Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publications, Inc., 111 F.2d 432 (2d Cir. 1940), the case of Superman v. Wonderman, is a 1940 decision of the Second Circuit in which the court held that the archetype of a comic book hero, in this case a cape-wearing benevolent-Hercules figure (Superman), is an idea, which the copyright in the comic strips does not protect against copying; only the specific details of the strips, their particular expression, enjoy legal protection. The author of the court's opinion was Judge Augustus N. Hand and the panel of Second Circuit judges included Judge Learned Hand.
- Sampson v. Channell (1940)110 F.2d 754 · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Sampson v. Channell, 110 F.2d 754 (1st Cir. 1940), was a United States Court of Appeals decision interpreting the application of the Erie doctrine (derived from Erie v. Tompkins) where diversity jurisdiction is invoked in a choice of law situation, where a court in one state may be called upon to apply the laws of another state. The Appellate court concluded that the federal district court must act as if it were a state court of the state in question, so long as the application of the state's substantive law might change the outcome of the case.
- United States v. Peoni (1938)100 F.2d 401 · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
United States v. Peoni, 100 F.2d 401 (2d Cir. 1938), was a criminal case that the prosecution must establish that the mental state (mens rea) of an accomplice to a crime include a purpose to aid or encourage, and thereby facilitate the criminal conduct of the principal. This showing of purpose is contrasted with showing knowledge that the principal would commit the crime, which does not necessarily imply that the purpose of acting to aid or abet was to facilitate the criminal act of the principal.
- United States v. One Package (1936)86 F.2d 737 · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries, 86 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1936) (often just U.S. v. One Package), was an in rem United States Court of Appeals case in the Second Circuit involving birth control.
- Trinity Methodist Church v. Federal Radio Commission (1932)62 F.2d 850 · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Trinity Methodist Church, South v. Federal Radio Commission, 62 F.2d 850 (D.C. Circuit, 1932), was an early precedent on the enforcement of broadcasting law in the United States. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a decision by the Federal Radio Commission (FRC) to deny a broadcasting license for radio station KGEF, due to controversial content broadcast by Robert P. Shuler. The court held that the public interest in appropriate content on the broadcast airwaves can override free speech concerns under the First Amendment, and that the denial of a radio station license is acceptable if done per due process of law requirements under the Fifth Amendment.
- The Tj Hooper (1932)60 F.2d 737 · U.S. Courts of Appeals
The T.J. Hooper, 60 F.2d 737 (2d. Cir. 1932) is a 1932 admiralty law decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The case is commonly known by the name of one of the vessels involved.
- Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp. (1930)45 F.2d 119 · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation, 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930),[1] was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case on copyright infringement by non-literal copying of a dramatic work. The Court held that copyright protection cannot be extended to the characteristics of stock characters in a story, whether it be a book, play, or film.
- Nutt v. National Institute Incorporated for the Improvement of Memory (1929)31 F.2d 236 · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Nutt v. National Institute Inc. (2d Cir. 1929) was an early case in which it was found that copyright extended beyond the words of a work. The court found that "The infringement need not be a complete or exact copy. Paraphrasing or copying with evasion is an infringement, even though there may be little or no conceivable identity between the two."