United States Reports

Fox Film Corp v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123 (1932), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that states may tax copyright royalties, as they can patent royalties, because even though copyrights & patents are granted by the federal government, they are still private property subject to taxation.

North American Oil Consolidated v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 417 (1932), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that established the claim of right doctrine.

Edwards v. United States, 286 U.S. 482 (1932), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a law is not invalid when a president signs it after Congress has adjourned, so long as it is signed within 10 days.

Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 (1932) is the landmark United States Supreme Court administrative law decision that outlined the adjudicatory authority of administrative agencies under Article III of the Constitution. The Court held that the United States Employees' Compensation Commission satisfied Fifth Amendment Due Process and the requirements of Article III with its court-like procedures and because it invests the final power of decision in Article III courts.

New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which struck down an Oklahoma law that required businesses that sold ice to obtain a license.

Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355 (1932), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving a governor's power to veto a congressional redistricting proposal passed by a state's legislature. In an opinion by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, the Court unanimously held that the U.S. Constitution did not prohibit Minnesota's governor from vetoing that state's redistricting map.

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States set an important standard to prevent double jeopardy.

Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421 (1932), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Harry M. Blackmer was a United States citizen resident in Paris. Blackmer was found guilty of contempt by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia for refusing to appear as a witness for the United States in a criminal trial, which was related to the Teapot Dome scandal, after being subpoenaed. Blackmer was subsequently fined $30,000 and the costs of the court. Blackmer challenged the fine under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court unanimously ruled against Blackmer, with Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes delivering the judgment and opinion of the Court and Justice Owen Josephus Roberts not participating.

United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 (1931), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that when a corporation settles its debts for less than the face amount, a taxable gain has occurred.

McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25 (1931), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding whether the theft of an airplane was illegal under federal law, given that the law only criminalized theft of a "vehicle."

Carbice Corp. v. American Patents Development Corp., 283 U.S. 27 (1931), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court extending the patent misuse doctrine against tie-ins to cases in which patents were used to tie the purchase of unpatented elements of patented combinations. The Court had previously held that it was unlawful to require the purchase of supplies as a condition of a patent license, where the supplies were not claimed as part of the patented combination.

Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co., 283 U.S. 191 (1931), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a hotel operator which provided headphones connected to a centrally controlled radio receiver was guilty of copyright infringement, because "reception of a radio broadcast and its translation into audible sound is not a mere audition of the original program. It is essentially a reproduction."

Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 7–2, that a California statute banning red flags was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In the case, Yetta Stromberg was convicted for displaying a red flag daily in the youth camp for children at which she worked, and was charged in accordance with California law. Chief Justice Charles Hughes wrote for the seven-justice majority that the California statute was unconstitutional, and therefore Stromberg's conviction could not stand.

Burnet v. Logan, 283 U.S. 404 (1931), was a case before the United States Supreme Court.

Arizona v. California is a set of United States Supreme Court cases, all dealing with disputes over water distribution from the Colorado River between the states of Arizona and California. It also covers the amount of water that the State of Nevada receives from the river.

Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court under which prior restraint on publication was found to violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment. This principle was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence. The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of "malicious" or "scandalous" newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment). Legal scholar and columnist Anthony Lewis called Near the Court's "first great press case". It was later a key precedent in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), in which the Court ruled against the Nixon administration's attempt to enjoin publication of the Pentagon Papers.

O'Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 282 U.S. 251 (1931), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a state statute limiting the commissions allowable by insurers against loss by fire to local agents will be deemed a valid exercise of the police power in the absence of facts showing it to be unreasonable.

Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks Co., 282 U.S. 359 (1931), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court dealing with accounting for purposes of federal income tax and the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case held that an annual accounting system is a practical necessity if the federal income tax is to produce revenue ascertainable and payable at regular intervals.

Educational Films Corp. v. Ward, 282 U.S. 379 (1931), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a state's corporate income tax may include royalties from copyrights in its calculation of overall income for the purposes of a franchise tax, even though direct income from copyrights, a federal institution, is immune from state taxation.

United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the Fifth Article of the US Constitution. The defendants had been indicted under the National Prohibition Act and were attempting to quash their indictments, arguing that the Eighteenth Amendment had not been properly ratified. Their reasoning was that the Congress of the United States had chosen to ratify it by usage of state legislatures instead of constitutional conventions. If this were held true, Congress would have exceeded its authority in passing the NPA. The court did not agree, however, ruling that the Constitution explicitly authorized Congress to determine the method used in ratifying amendments.

Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101 (1930), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a married person's income may be divided with his spouse in a community property state for purposes of U.S. federal income taxation. The Seaborns were residents of the State of Washington, a community property state, and each reported one-half of Mr. Seaborn's salary and other sources of income on their separate income tax returns. The Collector of Internal Revenue determined that the entire income should have been reported in Mr. Seaborn's return. The district court ruled in favor of Mr. Seaborn, and the Supreme Court affirmed. In doing so, the Court distinguished Lucas v.

Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning U.S. Federal income taxation, about a man who reported only half of his earnings for years 1920 and 1921. Guy C. Earl and his wife had entered into a contract that would potentially save a lot of tax. The contract specified that earnings were owned by the couple as joint tenants. It is unlikely that it was tax-motivated, since there was no income tax in 1901 when they executed the contract. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. delivered the Court’s opinion which generally stands for the proposition that income from services is taxed to the party who performed the services. The case is used to support the proposition that the substance of the transaction, rather than the form, is controlling for tax purposes.

Home Insurance Co. v. Dick, 281 U.S. 397 (1930), was one of the earliest conflict of laws cases in which the United States Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution imposes certain limitations on the ability of states to apply their own law to events occurring in other states.

United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396 (1930), is a unanimous ruling by the US Supreme Court that the term "political purpose," as used in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, was not impermissibly vague. The Supreme Court reversed the district court, which had quashed an indictment under the Act.

Karnuth v. United States ex rel. Albro, 279 U.S. 231 (1929), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that whether war between the United States and a treaty partner annuls stipulations of that treaty depends upon the intrinsic character of the stipulations.

Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U.S. 438 (1929), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) was an Article I tribunal. In 1962, the Supreme Court overruled Bakelite in Glidden Co. v. Zdanok (1962), holding that this court is an Article III court.

United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It concerned a pacifist applicant for naturalization who in the interview declared not to be willing to "take up arms personally" in defense of the United States. Originally found unable by the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to take the prescribed oath of allegiance, a decision reversed in appeal, the case was argued before the Supreme Court, which ruled against the applicant, and thus denied her the possibility of becoming a United States citizen.

The Pocket Veto Case (279 U.S. 655 (1929)), formally Bands of the State of Washington v. United States and Okanogan, Methow, San Poelis, Nespelem, Colville, and Lake Indian Tribes v. United States, was a unanimous United States Supreme Court decision that interpreted the U.S. Constitution's provisions on the pocket veto.

Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 279 U.S. 716 (1929), was an income tax case before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U.S. 367 (1929), also referred to as the Chicago Sanitary District Case, is an opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the equitable power of the United States can be used to impose positive action on one state in a situation in which nonaction would result in damage to the interests of other states. Pursuant to Article Three of the United States Constitution, the case was heard under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction (i.e. it did not come to the Supreme Court from a lower court) because it involved a controversy between two states, Illinois and Wisconsin. Chief Justice William Howard Taft wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Taft v. Bowers, 278 U.S. 470 (1929), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court dealing with taxation of a gift of shares of stock under the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The recipient of shares of stock, Elizabeth Taft, argued that she could not be taxed on the amount that the gift increased in value before she received it. She agreed that the IRS could tax the increase in value of the gift that occurred after her receipt of the gift.

Maney v. United States, 278 U.S. 17 (1928), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a person who filed for naturalization but filed a required certificate establishing when they entered the United States at a later date had illegally obtained their citizenship and was subject to denaturalization.

Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183 (1928), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the practice of zoning and its effects on property rights. The Supreme Court reversed a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling and found the invasion of the plaintiff's property rights were "serious and highly injurious," by new city zoning ordinance, and that the placement of the locus of the zoning ordinance would not promote the health, safety, convenience or general welfare of inhabitants. Nectow v. City of Cambridge, along with Euclid v. Ambler, was an early and influential case regarding the relatively new practice of zoning, and constituted the Supreme Court's case law on zoning until 1974.

Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189 (1928), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the Appointments Clause.

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, on the matter of whether wiretapping of private telephone conversations, conducted by federal agents without a search warrant with recordings subsequently used as evidence, constituted a violation of the target’s rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the constitutional rights of a wiretapping target have not been violated. In an influential dissent, Justice Louis Brandeis stated that, "[The Founding Fathers] conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men.

Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272 (1928), was a property rights case in balancing the rights of a property owner against a social policy that is not unreasonable.

J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928), is a landmark case in the United States in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that congressional delegation of legislative authority is an implied power of Congress that is constitutional so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch. Congress has the authority to legislate and regulate commerce and customs dues. § 315 of the Tariff Act (42 Stat. 858) delegated authority to the Executive to raise the rate fixed by the statute (the "flexible tariff provision").

United States v. Manzi, 276 U.S. 463 (1928), was a Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that in order to receive the full benefits of citizenship, the widow of an alien who died after declaring his intent to become a citizen, but before being naturalized, must file her petition within the time frame set by law, at the time being 7 years after the declaration of intent was filed. This case established that when applying for citizenship, the action undertaken by an alien to become naturalized is to be understood to also be "as though taken by the widow herself."

Black and White Taxicab and Transfer Company v. Brown and Yellow Taxicab and Transfer Company, 276 U.S. 518 (1928), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court refused to hold that federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction must apply state common law. Ten years later, in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, the Court reversed course, and overturned Swift v. Tyson.

Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78 (1927), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the exclusion on account of race of a child of Chinese ancestry from a public school did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The decision effectively approved the exclusion of any minority children from schools reserved for whites. The case was brought by the Lum family of Rosedale, Mississippi, Chinese immigrants with two American-born children who had attended local public schools for white children without incident until, in the wake of an increase in anti-Chinese sentiment nationwide after passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, they were told by administrators that their children could only attend the district's school for black children.

New Mexico v. Texas, 275 U.S. 279 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined the boundary between Texas and New Mexico in the vicinity of El Paso, Texas.

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Despite changing attitudes about sterilization, the Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell. It is widely believed to have been weakened by Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), which deemed compulsory sterilization of male habitual criminals unconstitutional. Legal scholar and Holmes biographer G.

United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927), is a United States Supreme Court case that allowed prosecution of criminals for income tax evasion notwithstanding the Fifth Amendment. The case also served as the legal test for prosecution of Al Capone for tax evasion by Assistant Attorney General Mabel Walker Willebrandt. Willebrandt theorized illegally earned income was subject to income tax, and she tested her theory using Sullivan. Once the theory was found sound, she moved to prosecute Capone in 1931.

Burns v. United States, 274 U.S. 328 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court decision centered around William Burns' arrest in California while acting as a labor organizer for the Industrial Workers of the World (I.W.W.). Despite Burns attempts to claim that his association with the labor group the Industrial Workers of the World did not constitute grounds to convict him and took issue the jury instructions that framed the I.W.W. as an illegal organization, the Supreme Court chose to uphold the California Criminal Syndicalism Act and Burns' conviction. Due to the complexities of the I.W.W.'s relationship to sabotage, and amidst court cases such as Whitney v. California and Fiske v.

Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352 (1927), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a statute designating the Massachusetts registrar of motor vehicles as agent for purpose of service of process for out-of-state non-resident motorists complies with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of an individual who had engaged in speech that raised a clear and present danger to society. While the majority of the Supreme Court justices voted to uphold the conviction, the ruling has become an important free speech precedent due to a concurring opinion by Justice Louis Brandeis recommending new perspectives on criticism of the government by citizens. The ruling was explicitly overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969.

Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court Case that was first argued May 3, 1926 and finally decided May 16, 1927.

Biddle v. Perovich, 274 U.S. 480 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that under his power "to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States" (Article II, Section 2), the President may commute a sentence of death to life imprisonment without the convict's consent. This was a modification of the result in Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79, limited page 274 U.S. 486. Response to a certificate of questions from the circuit court of appeals, arising upon review of a judgment of the district court in habeas corpus discharging Perovich from the Leavenworth Penitentiary.

United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559 (1927), is a significant decision by the United States Supreme Court protecting prohibition laws. The Court held 1) the Coast Guard may seize, board, and search vessels beyond the U.S. territorial waters and the high seas 12 miles outward from the coast if probable cause exists to believe that the vessel and persons in it are violating U.S. revenue laws, and 2) the Coast Guard's use of searchlights to view contents of a vessel on the high seas does not constitute a search and thus does not warrant Fourth Amendment protections.

McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927), was a case heard before the Supreme Court, decided on January 17, 1927. It was a challenge to Mally Daugherty's contempt conviction and arrest, which happened when he failed to appear before a Senate committee investigating the failure of his brother, Attorney General Harry Daugherty, to investigate the perpetrators of the Teapot Dome Scandal. The court upheld his conviction. In the case, the Supreme Court held for the first time that under the Constitution, Congress has the power to compel witnesses to appear and provide testimony.