United States Reports
606 volumes · 104,521 opinions
4,420 opinions in United States Reports with a Wikipedia-sourced synopsis — the cases notable enough that someone wrote an encyclopedia article about them.
- Buck v. Gallagher (1939)307 U.S. 95
Buck v. Gallagher, 307 U.S. 95 (1939), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court had two main holdings. First, American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) members have a common and undivided interest in the right to license in association through the Society free of the state statute. Second, the lower court should have allowed ASCAP members the opportunity to price the cost of complying with the statute and the value of the copyrights affected by it.
- United States v. Miller (1939)307 U.S. 174
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that involved a Second Amendment to the United States Constitution challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The case is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position.
- Lane v. Wilson (1939)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional307 U.S. 268
Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268 (1939), was a United States Supreme Court case that found a 12-day one-time voter registration window to be discriminatory for black citizens who were excluded from voting prior and repugnant to the Fifteenth Amendment. It eliminated the power of county registrars illegally excluding black citizens.
- Perkins v. Elg (1939)307 U.S. 325
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties."
- Coleman v. Miller (1939)307 U.S. 433
Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which clarified that when proposing for the ratification of an amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to Article V thereof, if the Congress of the United States chooses not to set a deadline by which the proposed amendment must be acted upon by the requisite three-fourths of state legislatures or state ratifying conventions, then the proposed amendment remains pending business before the state legislatures (or ratifying conventions). The case centered on the Child Labor Amendment, which was proposed for ratification by Congress in 1924.
- Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization (1939)Held municipal or local ordinance unconstitutional307 U.S. 496
Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939), is a US labor law case decided by the United States Supreme Court.
- United States v. Rock Royal Co-Op Noyes (1939)307 U.S. 533
United States v. Rock Royal Co-op, 307 U.S. 533 (1939), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Commerce Clause allows federal regulation of milk processed and sold entirely within the state of New York because the company used a mixture of raw milk from farms within and outside the state of New York.
- Washingtonian Publishing Co. v. Pearson (1939)306 U.S. 30
Washingtonian Publishing Co. v. Pearson, 306 U.S. 30 (1939), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Copyright Act of 1909's deposit requirement did not require immediate deposit, or deposit before infringement occurs, in order to bring a suit for infringement.
- Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States (1939)306 U.S. 208
Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208 (1939), is a 1939 decision of the United States Supreme Court finding an antitrust price-fixing conspiracy based on what subsequently came to be known a hub-and-spoke conspiracy.
- National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp. (1939)306 U.S. 240
National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corporation, 306 U.S. 240 (1939), is a United States Supreme Court case on labor laws in which the Court held that the National Labor Relations Board had no authority to order an employer to reinstate workers fired after a sit-down strike, even if the employer's illegal actions triggered that strike.
- National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. (1939)306 U.S. 292
NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. 292 (1939), is a US labor law case where the US Supreme Court held 5-to-2 that the National Labor Relations Act required decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (Board) to be based on substantial evidence. The Supreme Court overturned a ruling of the Board (requiring an employer to rehire striking workers) for not being based on substantial evidence. The Court also held that only the representative of the workers (the union) could issue collective bargaining proposals under the law, and that proposals transmitted by a third party did not trigger the Act's protections or duties.
- Taylor v. Standard Gas & Electric Co. (1939)306 U.S. 307
Taylor v. Standard Gas and Electric Company, 306 U.S. 307 (1939), was an important United States Supreme Court case in United States corporate law that laid down the "Deep Rock doctrine" as a rule of bankruptcy and corporate law. This holds that claims, as creditors, upon an insolvent subsidiary company by controlling shareholders or other insiders, like managers or directors, will be subordinated to the claims of all other creditors.
- National Labor Relations Board v. Sands Manufacturing Co. (1939)306 U.S. 332
National Labor Relations Board v. Sands Manufacturing Co., 306 U.S. 332 (1939), is United States labor law case, decided by a majority of 5 to 2 by the Supreme Court of the United States, which overturned a decision by the National Labor Relations Board because it was not supported by substantial evidence. The Court defined collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act to mean that proposals and responses to proposals were pending, and that future meetings were being planned. Absent such conditions, bargaining was not occurring. The Court also held that an employer did not violate the Act if it chose to deal with the employees on an individual basis.
- Pacific Employers Ins Co v. Industrial Accident Commission of California (1939)306 U.S. 493
Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 306 U.S. 493 (1939), was a conflict of laws case decided by the United States Supreme Court that held that principles of federalism overcome the Full Faith and Credit Clause if a state enforces its own laws on events occurring within the state.
- Ford Motor Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (1939)305 U.S. 364
Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 364 (1939), is an 8-to-0 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that an administrative agency of the United States government, seeking enforcement of its orders, cannot withdraw its petition or the transcript of the administrative hearing once these have been submitted to the appropriate court. Whether the agency should be permitted to withdraw its petition is a decision for the court of appeals, the Supreme Court said.
- Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. (1938)305 U.S. 111
Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Kellogg Company was not violating any trademark or unfair competition laws when it manufactured its own Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, which had originally been invented by the National Biscuit Company (later called Nabisco). Kellogg's version of the product was of an essentially identical shape, and was also marketed as "Shredded Wheat"; but Nabisco's patents had expired, and its trademark application for the term "Shredded Wheat" had been turned down as a descriptive, non-trademarkable term.
- Lyeth v. Hoey (1938)305 U.S. 188
Lyeth v. Hoey, 305 U.S. 188 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that property received by an heir under a settlement agreement resolving a dispute over the decedent's will is property acquired by "inheritance," which exempts the value of such property from the income tax.
- State of Missouri Gaines v. Canada (1938)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional305 U.S. 337
Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that states which provided a school to White students had to provide in-state education to Black students as well. States could satisfy this requirement by allowing Black and White students to attend the same school or creating a second school for Black students.
- United States v. Bekins (1938)304 U.S. 27
United States v. Bekins, 304 U.S. 27 (1938), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the federal government's bankruptcy powers can extend to state agencies without violating federalism principles.
- Erie Co v. Tompkins (1938)Altered precedent304 U.S. 64
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the United States does not have a general federal common law and that U.S. federal courts must apply state substantive law, not federal law, to lawsuits between parties from different states that do not involve federal questions. In reaching this holding, the Court overturned almost a century of federal civil procedure case law, and established the foundation of the modern law of diversity jurisdiction. Although Erie is not widely known among non-experts, most American legal scholars and lawyers regard it as one of the most important decisions in U.S. Supreme Court history.
Overruled Swift v. Tyson (1842) - Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co. (1938)304 U.S. 92
Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U.S. 92 (1938), is a US Supreme Court case that said a "general common law" or "general federal common law" no longer exists in the American legal system and is unconstitutional. However, federal courts retain the power to create federal common law in specific areas related to federal rights and interests.
- United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians (1938)304 U.S. 111
United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians of the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming, 304 U.S. 111 (1938), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that mineral rights on a reservation belonged to the tribe, not the federal government.
- United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938)304 U.S. 144
United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938), was a case of the United States Supreme Court that upheld the federal government's power to prohibit filled milk from being shipped in interstate commerce. In his majority opinion for the Court, Associate Justice Harlan F. Stone wrote that economic regulations were "presumptively constitutional" under a deferential standard of review known as the "rational basis test".
- General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co. (1938)304 U.S. 175
General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co., 304 U.S. 175 (1938), was a case that the Supreme Court of the United States decided in 1938. The decision upheld so-called field-of-use limitations in patent licenses: it held that the limitations were enforceable in a patent infringement suit in federal court against the licensee and those acting in concert with it—for example, a customer that knowingly buys a patented product from the licensee that is outside the scope of the license.
- National Labor Relations Board v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. (1938)304 U.S. 333
NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333 (1938), is a United States labor law case of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that workers who strike remain employees for the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Court granted the relief sought by the National Labor Relations Board, which sought to have the workers reinstated by the employer. However, the decision is much better known today for its obiter dicta in which the Court said that an employer may hire strikebreakers and is not bound to discharge any of them if or when the strike ends.
- Johnson v. Zerbst (1938)304 U.S. 458
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938), was a United States Supreme Court case, in which the petitioner, Johnson, had been convicted in federal court of feloniously possessing, uttering, and passing counterfeit money in a trial where he had not been represented by an attorney but instead by himself. Johnson filed for habeas corpus relief, claiming that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated, but he was denied by both a federal district court and the court of appeals.
- In re the National Labor Relations Board (1938)304 U.S. 486
In re Labor Board, 304 U.S. 486 (1938), is a 5-to-2 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the National Labor Relations Act requires the filing of a petition and a transcript in order for an enforcement order to proceed in federal court, and that a writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus are appropriate measures to take in quashing a petition when no transcript has been filed.
- Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co. (1938)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional304 U.S. 518
Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co., 304 U.S. 518 (1938), is a court case in which the appellee, the Yosemite Park and Curry Co., brought this suit to enjoin the California State Board of Equalization and the State Attorney General from enforcing the 'Alcoholic Beverage Control Act' of the State of California, within the limits of Yosemite National Park.
- Connecticut General Life Insurance v. Johnson (1938)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional303 U.S. 77
Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Johnson, 303 U.S. 77 (1938), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States dealt with corporate entities. The case involved whether California could levy a tax on a company licensed to do business in that state for transactions that occurred in a different state.
- Electric Bond & Share Co. v. Securities & Exchange Comm'n (1938)303 U.S. 419
Electric Bond & Share Co. v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 303 U.S. 419 (1938), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court upheld the constitutionality of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935.
- Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938)Held municipal or local ordinance unconstitutional303 U.S. 444
Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case. This case was remarkable in its discussion of the requirement of persons to seek government sanction to distribute religious material. In this particular case, the Supreme Court ruled it was not constitutional for a city to require such sanction.
- New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co. (1938)303 U.S. 552
New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 U.S. 552 (1938), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court which affects US labor law, safeguarding a right to boycott and in the struggle by African Americans against discriminatory hiring practices. Sanitary Grocery Co. was at the time of the case owned by Safeway Inc.
- Hale v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (1938)303 U.S. 613
Hale v. Kentucky, 303 U.S. 613 (1938), was a United States Supreme Court case relating to racial discrimination in the selection of juries for criminal trials. The case overturned the conviction of an African American man accused of murder because the lower court of Kentucky had systematically excluded African Americans from serving on the jury in the case. NAACP counsel, including Charles H. Houston, Leon A. Ransom and Thurgood Marshall, represented Hale.
- Leitch Mfg Co v. Barber Co (1938)302 U.S. 458
Leitch Manufacturing Co. v. Barber Co., 302 U.S. 458 (1938), is a 1938 decision of the United States Supreme Court extending the tie-in patent misuse doctrine to cases in which the patentee does not use an explicit tie-in license but instead relies on grants of implied licenses to only those who buy a necessary supply from it.
- Wright v. United States (1938)302 U.S. 583
Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938), was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified what qualifies as an adjournment for determining whether a veto is as a pocket veto and therefore unable to be overriden. The Court held that the recess of a single chamber under Article I, Section 5, is not an adjournment. Unlike the Pocket Veto Case, Wright v. United States concerns situations where a single chamber of Congress has entered recess, as opposed to the adjournment of the full Congress.
- Bogardus v. Commissioner (1937)302 U.S. 34
Bogardus v. Commissioner, 302 U.S. 34 (1937), was a United States Supreme Court case discussing, under United States tax law, how to distinguish compensation from tax-exempt gifts under § 102(a). It is notable (and thus appears frequently in law school casebooks) for the following holdings: A payment cannot be both "compensation for personal service" within the meaning of § 22(a) of the Revenue Act of 1928 and a "gift" under (b)(3) of the same section. Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, distinguished.
- James v. Dravo Contracting Co. (1937)302 U.S. 134
James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 (1937), is a 5-to-4 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that a state's corporate income tax did not violate the Supremacy Clause (Article Six, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution by taxing the Federal government of the United States. It was the first time the Court had upheld a tax on the federal government. The decision is considered a landmark in the field of federal tax immunity, underpins modern legal interpretations of the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution, and established the "legal incidence test" for tax cases.
- Puerto Rico v. Shell Co. (1937)302 U.S. 253
Puerto Rico v. Shell Co. (P. R.), Ltd., 302 U.S. 253 (1937), is a Supreme Court of the United States case concerning Puerto Rico. The issue was whether a local ("insular") law could be pre-empted by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. It was also notable as being one of the first cases that determined that Puerto Rico can be treated as if a state for some purposes under the law. It has become a precedent for similar cases.
- Breedlove v. Suttles (1937)Overruled (1966)302 U.S. 277
Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937), is an overturned United States Supreme Court decision which upheld the constitutionality of requiring the payment of a poll tax in order to vote in state elections.
Overruled by Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) - Palko v. State of Connecticut (1937)Overruled (1969)302 U.S. 319
Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy.
Overruled by Benton v. Maryland (1969) - Ex parte Lévitt (1937)302 U.S. 633
Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 (1937), is a United States Supreme Court case that dismissed objections to the appointment of Justice Hugo Black for lack of standing.
- National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937)301 U.S. 1
National Labor Relations Board v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 (1937), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act. The case marked a major expansion in the Court's interpretation of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and effectively spelled the end to the Court's striking down of New Deal economic legislation.
- United States v. Belmont (1937)301 U.S. 324
United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937), was a dispute between the federal executive branch and the State of New York over property rights to a deposit from a former Russian corporation with August Belmont & Company, a private New York City banking firm. Belmont established executive predominance over state laws and constitutions in the sphere of foreign policy, and allocated the constitutional power for initiating executive agreements solely to the president of the United States.
- Chas Steward Mach Co v. Davis (1937)301 U.S. 548
Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the unemployment compensation provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935, which established the federal taxing structure that was designed to induce states to adopt laws for funding and payment of unemployment compensation. The decision signaled the Court's acceptance of a broad interpretation of Congressional power to influence state laws.
- Helvering v. Davis (1937)301 U.S. 619
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that held that Social Security was constitutionally permissible as an exercise of the federal power to spend for the general welfare and so did not contravene the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Court's 7–2 decision defended the constitutionality of the old-age benefit program of the Social Security Act of 1935 by requiring only welfare spending to be for the common benefit, as distinguished from some mere local purpose. It affirmed a District Court decree that held that the tax upon employees was not properly at issue and that the tax upon employers was constitutional.
- West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937)Altered precedent300 U.S. 379
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the constitutionality of state minimum wage legislation. The court's decision overturned an earlier holding in Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923) and is generally regarded as having ended the Lochner era, a period in American legal history during which the Supreme Court tended to invalidate legislation aimed at regulating business. The case arose when hotel maid Elsie Parrish sued for the difference between her wages and the minimum wage set by the State of Washington.
Overruled Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923) - De Jonge v. Oregon (1937)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional299 U.S. 353
De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies the First Amendment right of freedom of assembly to the individual U.S. states. The Court found that Dirk De Jonge had the right to speak at a peaceful public meeting held by the Communist Party, even though the party generally advocated an industrial or political change in revolution. However, in the 1950s with the fear of communism on the rise, the Court ruled in Dennis v. United States (1951) that Eugene Dennis, who was the leader of the Communist Party, violated the Smith Act by advocating the forcible overthrow of the United States government.
- Valentine v. United States ex rel. Neidecker (1936)299 U.S. 5
Valentine v. United States, 299 U.S. 5 (1936), is known in the study of international criminal law for its contribution to the concept that while it is permissible for the United States to receive an accused without a treaty-based extradition, the United States itself will not extradite without authority found in statute or treaty.
- Bourdieu v. Pacific Western Oil Co. (1936)299 U.S. 65
Bourdieu v. Pacific Western Oil Co., 299 U.S. 65 (1936), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that an inquiry into indispensability would be unnecessary where the complaint did not state a cause of action.
- KVOS, Inc. v. Associated Press (1936)299 U.S. 269
KVOS v. Associated Press, 299 U.S. 269 (1936), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held an association of newspapers cannot sue collectively to raise their projected damages above the minimum damages required for federal jurisdiction when only individual newspapers are parties to unfair competition.