United States Reports

Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the knowing use of false testimony by a prosecutor in a criminal case violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if the testimony affects only the credibility of the witness and does not directly relate to the innocence or guilt of the defendant.

Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315 (1959), represented the Supreme Court's movement away from the amorphous voluntariness standard for determining whether police violated due process standards when eliciting confessions and towards the modern rule in Miranda v. Arizona. In Spano, the Court focused less on factors such as meals provided to the accused and more on whether the accused had access to legal counsel.

Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning legal immunity for officers of the executive branch. The Court held that when a federal government official issues a press release or other public statement about an aspect of their official duties, they are absolutely immune from libel suits—at least so long as the libel suit was not authorized by Congress, per Justice Hugo Black, whose concurring opinion provided the decisive fifth vote for immunity. The case originated when John J. Madigan and Linda Matteo, two former employees of the Office of Rent Stabilization, sued acting director William G. Barr over statements he made about them in a press release.

New York v. O'Neill, 359 U.S. 1 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Florida statute, established by the enactment of the Uniform Law to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without a State in Criminal Proceedings which established a procedure for a witness to be subpoened with the agreement of a court in a trial state and a court in the state of the witness, on its face does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2 of the Constitution nor the Privileges and Immunities or Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. At the time, the uniform law had been adopted in 42 states of the United States, as well as Puerto Rico. Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote the opinion for the court. Justice William O.

Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959), is a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision held that coordination of federal officials with state officials did not implicate the double jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It also held that a defendant may be acquitted of a federal crime and convicted of a state crime, even if those crimes share the same evidence, without violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959), is a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision held that the double jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the prosecution of a conspiracy in federal court under federal law when that same conspiracy has already resulted in a conviction in state court under state law.

Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U.S. 207 (1959), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that a retail chain's persuasion of a number of suppliers not to deal with a competitive retailer was a per se illegal boycott – under a hub-and-spoke conspiracy theory.

San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959), is a United States labor law case, concerning the scope of federal preemption against state law for labor rights.

Scull v. Virginia ex rel. Committee on Law Reform and Racial Activities, 359 U.S. 344 (1959), is a 9–0 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that a conviction violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution if the defendant is not given an opportunity "to determine whether he was within his rights in refusing to answer" an inquiry put to him by the legislature of a U.S. state.

Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Irvin v. Dowd, 359 U.S. 394 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case. It involved the denial of appeal of an escaped convict, Leslie Irvin. The convict sought a federal writ of habeas corpus.

Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with jury trials in civil matters. The court held that where legal and equitable claims are joined in the same action, the legal claims must be tried by a jury before the equitable claims can be resolved.

Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 359 U.S. 520 (1959), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Illinois law requiring trucks to have unique mudguards was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.

Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the State of Arizona does not have jurisdiction to try a civil case between a non-Indian doing business on a reservation with tribal members who reside on the reservation, the proper forum for such cases being the tribal court.

Cammarano v. United States, 358 U.S. 498 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that business may not deduct expenses they incurred for the "promotion or defeat of legislation" as "ordinary and necessary" business expenses on their federal income tax filing.

Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that exempting non-residents from a state tax on storing property in warehouses was constitutional. According to the Court, the state was allowed to attract out-of-state business, and the exemption was a rational means for that end.

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that denied the school board of Little Rock, Arkansas the right to delay racial desegregation for 30 months. On September 12, 1958, the Warren Court delivered a decision that held that the states are bound by the Court's decisions and must enforce them even if the states disagree with them, asserting the judicial supremacy established in Marbury v. Madison (1803). The decision in this case upheld the rulings in Brown v. Board of Education and Brown II that had held that the doctrine of separate but equal was unconstitutional.

United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Memphis Light, Gas, and Water Division, 358 U.S. 103 (1958), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court interpreted the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (NGA) as allowing a gas supply company to unilaterally modify a rate in a natural gas supply contract if the contract specified that the rate was that of the rate schedule filed with the Federal Power Commission (FPC) and the gas company filed a new rate schedule. This case clarified the Mobile-Sierra doctrine established by United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp. (1956) and its companion case Federal Power Commission v. Sierra Pacific Power Co.

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 357 of the United States Reports:

Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63 (1958), affirmed on rehearing, 362 U.S. 145 (1960), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a taxpayer generally must pay the full amount of an income tax deficiency assessed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue before he may challenge its correctness by a suit in a federal district court for refund under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1). The Supreme Court agreed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, stating that the full payment rule requires the entire amount of an asserted deficiency to be paid before a refund suit may be maintained.

Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the court held that the government violated the right to travel and First Amendment free speech rights when it suspended people's passports based on their political speech. It was the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court made a distinction between the constitutionally protected substantive due process freedom of movement and the right to travel abroad (subsequently characterized as "right to international travel").

Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (1958), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court considered whether a district court could dismiss a case based on the petitioner's failure to comply with the court's order to produce records of the petitioner's Swiss bank account, an act which would have amounted to a violation of Swiss law.

Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding personal jurisdiction in the context of assets held in trust.

Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301 (1958), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that one could not lawfully be arrested in one's home by officers breaking in without first giving one notice of their authority and purpose.

Wiener v. United States, 357 U.S. 349 (1958), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that the President's plenary removal authority does not include an officer of the United States who exercises quasi-judicial authority. The legislative framework established for the War Claims Commission suggests that Congress intended to provide a degree of insulation from executive influence to ensure impartial adjudication. This case reaffirms the division of powers principle.

Ashdown v. Utah, 357 U.S. 426 (1958), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the officers involved in the case did not take advantage of petitioner or overtake her will when eliciting the confession. This case was one of the last decisions by the Court about confession evidence that preceded important new rules in Escobedo v. Illinois.

Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433 (1958), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that limited criminal suspects' constitutional right to counsel before trial, refusing to overturn a subsequent conviction without a showing that the refusal of counsel had a coercive or prejudicial effect. This holding was later overturned by Escobedo v. Illinois and Miranda v. Arizona.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court. Alabama sought to prevent the NAACP from conducting further business in the state. After the circuit court issued a restraining order, the state issued a subpoena for various records, including the NAACP's membership lists. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Alabama's demand for the lists violated the right of due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which, along with its companion cases Prince v. City and County of San Francisco and First Unitarian Church v. Los Angeles (separately decided), held that a loyalty oath requirement for seeking a property tax exemption violated the procedural due process rights of applicants who refused to sign the oath under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it placed the burden of proof to show that their speech was not criminal on the applicants, rather than the state.

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 356 of the United States Reports:

Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed Congress's right to revoke United States citizenship as a result of a citizen's voluntary performance of specified actions, even in the absence of any intent or desire on the person's part to lose citizenship. Specifically, the Supreme Court upheld an act of Congress which provided for revocation of citizenship as a consequence of voting in a foreign election.

Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to revoke citizenship as a punishment for a crime. The ruling's reference to "evolving standards of decency" is frequently cited in Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.

Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129 (1958), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a dual United States/Japanese citizen who had served in the Japanese military during World War II could not be denaturalized unless the United States could prove that he had acted voluntarily.

NLRB v. Borg-Warner Corp., 356 U.S. 342 (1958), was a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Court held that an employer commits an unfair labor practice when it insists to impasse on bargaining over a permissive (non-mandatory) subject of bargaining as a condition of reaching a collective bargaining agreement. The ruling clarified the distinction between mandatory and permissive subjects under Section 8(d) of the NLRA and limited the issues that either party could lawfully insist upon during negotiations.

Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958), was a United States Supreme Court case on the issue of entrapment. Unanimously, the Court overturned the conviction of a recovering New York drug addict who had been repeatedly solicited for drug sales by a fellow former addict who was working with federal agents.

Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., 356 U.S. 525 (1958), decided on May 19, 1958, was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that refined the doctrine regarding in what instances courts were required to follow state law.

One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371 (1958), is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court for LGBT rights in the United States. It was the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling to deal with homosexuality and the first to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality. The Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that the gay magazine ONE violated obscenity laws, thus upholding constitutional protection for pro-homosexual writing.

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 355 of the United States Reports:

Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U.S. 28 (1957), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that perjury from a prosecution witness is a due process violation when the prosecutor knows the witness testimony is false.

Times Film Corp. v. City of Chicago, or Times v. City of Chicago is the name of two cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1957 and 1961. Both involved the issue of limits on freedom of expression in connection with motion pictures. In both cases the court affirmed the right of local governments to engage in some form of censorship.

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that provided a basis for a broad reading of the "short and plain statement" requirement for pleading under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220 (1957), was a case following in the line of decisions interpreting International Shoe v. Washington. The Court declared that California did not violate the Due Process Clause by entering a judgment upon a Texas insurance company who was engaged in a dispute over a policy it maintained with a California resident. The importance of this finding is highlighted by the facts of the case; mainly that International Life Insurance did no other business within the state of California besides maintaining this single policy, which the company became responsible for by its acquisition of another insurance company which previously had held the policy.

Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the defense of ignorance of the law when there is no legal notice. The court held that when one is required to register one's presence, failure to register may be punished only when there is a probability that the accused party had knowledge of the law before committing the crime of failing to register.

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a 6–2 landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that United States citizen civilians outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States cannot be tried by a United States military tribunal, but instead retain the protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution, in this case, trial by jury. Additionally, a plurality of the Court also reaffirmed the president’s ability to enter into international executive agreements, though it held that such agreements cannot contradict federal law or the Constitution.

Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the power of the United States Congress is not unlimited in conducting investigations and that nothing in the United States Constitution gives it the authority to expose the private affairs of individuals.

Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957), was a case before the United States Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that jailing an academic when he refused to answer questions about university lectures he had given was a violation of due process. On a larger scale, the decision established constitutional protections for academic freedom and reined in the investigative powers of state legislatures.

Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the First Amendment protected radical and reactionary speech, unless it posed a "clear and present danger".

Carroll v. United States, 354 U.S. 394 (1957), was a federal court case dealing with the appealability of a suppression order issued by the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia for an unlawful warrant under the Fourth Amendment.

Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436 (1957), was a Supreme Court case that addressed issues of obscenity, free speech, and due process. The case stemmed from the confiscation and destruction of books from a New York City bookstore. The court's determination was that: A state injunction against distribution of material designated as "obscene" does not violate freedom of speech and press protected by the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Morey v. Doud, 354 U.S. 457 (1957), was a U.S. Supreme Court case where Doud and two partners sold 'Bondified' brand money orders in Illinois, directly or through agents such as drug and grocery stores. A state law required any seller or issuer of money orders to secure a license and submit to state regulation, except that the statute, by name, explicitly exempted the American Express Company from these requirements.