United States Reports

Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284 (1927), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously struck down the Territory of Hawaii's law, making it illegal for schools to teach foreign languages without a permit, as it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Violation of the due process clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was not considered as Hawaii was a territory of the United States at the time.

Tyson & Brother v. Banton, 273 U.S. 418 (1927), is a US Supreme Court case, concerning the constitutionality of the State of New York imposing restrictions on the price of resold theatre tickets. It has been reversed but is notable for the dissent of Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927), is a US Supreme Court case, concerning the due process of judicial disqualification. The court struck down an Ohio law that financially rewarded public officials for successfully prosecuting cases related to Prohibition. The court's decision in this case continues to provide precedent today in many cases involving judicial impartiality.

Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court decision which struck down a 1923 Texas law forbidding blacks from voting in the Texas Democratic Party primary. Due to the limited amount of Republican Party activity in Texas at the time following the suppression of black voting through poll taxes, the Democratic Party primary was essentially the only competitive process and chance to choose candidates for the Senate, House of Representatives and state offices. This case was one of four supported by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) that challenged the Texas Democratic Party's all-white primary, which was finally prohibited in the Supreme Court ruling Smith v. Allwright in 1944.

Harmon v. Tyler, 273 U.S. 668 (1927), was a unanimous United States Supreme Court decision addressing racial segregation in residential areas. The Court held that a New Orleans, Louisiana ordinance requiring residential segregation based on race violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court relied on the authority of Buchanan v. Warley.

Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), was a United States Supreme Court decision ruling that the President's exclusive power to remove executive branch officials is vested in the Office of the Presidency by Article Two of the United States Constitution, and the Take Care Clause generally limits Congress from restricting this power. Myers was the first Supreme Court case to invalidate a federal law for violating the separation of powers by allowing Congress to "participate in the exercise of [the removal power]". The Taft Court's broad view of the President's "constitutional duty of seeing that the laws be faithfully executed" was limited in Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935) to "purely executive" offices. In Seila Law LLC v.

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926), commonly known as Euclid v. Ambler, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court found that local ordinance-style zoning was a valid exercise of the police power. It was the first significant case regarding the relatively new practice of zoning, and bolstered zoning in the United States and influenced other countries.

United States v. General Electric Co., 272 U.S. 476 (1926), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding (per Chief Justice Taft) that a patentee who has granted a single license to a competitor to manufacture the patented product may lawfully fix the price at which the licensee may sell the product.

Luckenbach Steamship Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 533 (1926), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the statute limiting all appeals of cases from the United States Court of Claims to questions of law was constitutional.

Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581 (1926), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that reaffirmed the National Prohibition Act's limitation on the dispensation of alcoholic medicines. The five-to-four decision, written by Justice Louis D. Brandeis, affirmed the dismissal of a suit in which New York City physician Samuel Lambert sought to prevent Edward Yellowley, the acting federal prohibition director, from enforcing the Prohibition Act so as to preclude him from prescribing alcoholic medicines.

Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 272 U.S. 605 (1926), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Boiler Inspection Act has so occupied the field of regulating locomotive equipment on interstate highways that state legislation requiring cab curtains and automatic firebox doors is precluded and must be addressed by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Hartsville Oil Mill v. United States, 271 U.S. 43 (1926), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims was not enlarged by Congressional reference legislation when the court already had jurisdiction to hear the case under another section of the Judicial Code. Additionally the court held that modification to the contract in question was not by duress as there had not been an inadequate power in the courts to remedy the effects of the threatened actions.

Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that no taxable income arose from the repayment in German marks of loans that had originally been made in U.S. dollars, despite the fact that the marks had gone down in value relative to the dollar since the loan had been made.[1] This decision was narrowed by the court six years later in United States v. Kirby Lumber Co..

Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323 (1926), was a US Supreme Court case in 1926 that ruled that the racially-restrictive covenant of multiple residents on S Street NW, between 18th Street and New Hampshire Avenue, in Washington, DC, was a legally-binding document that made the selling of a house to a black family a void contract. This ruling set the precedent upholding racially restrictive covenants in Washington; soon after this ruling, racially restrictive covenants flourished around the nation. Subsequently, in Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) the court reconsidered such covenants and found that racially restrictive covenants are unenforceable.

United States v. Ramsey, 271 U.S. 467 (1926), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the government had the authority to prosecute crimes against Native Americans (Indians) on reservation land that was still designated Indian Country by federal law. The Osage Indian Tribe held mineral rights that were worth millions of dollars. A white rancher, William K. Hale, devised a plot to kill tribal members to allow his nephew, who was married to a tribal member, to inherit the mineral rights. The tribe requested the assistance of the federal government, which sent Bureau of Investigation agents to solve the murders. Hale and several others were arrested and tried for the murders, but they claimed that the federal government did not have jurisdiction.

Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, 271 U.S. 500 (1926), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a law passed by the US colonial government of the Philippines in 1921, Act No. 2972 of the Philippine Legislature, known as the "Chinese Bookkeeping Act", was unconstitutional. It prevented business records from being kept in the Chinese language.

Weaver v. Palmer Brothers Company, 270 U.S. 402 (1926), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court struck down a public health and safety regulation as a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court expanded and established key constructs of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process doctrine along with establishing the vagueness doctrine. It defined necessary requirements that are fundamental to any law, which, when lacking, are to be deemed void. The case was a dispute regarding Oklahoma state statutes, which, in essence vaguely required businesses to pay workers not less than the "current rate of per diem wages in the locality where the work is performed". The ruling determined that the standards set in place were unconstitutionally vague.

Davis v Alexander, 269 U.S. 114 (1925), is a US corporate law case, concerning the duties of parent corporations for actions of subsidiaries.

Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5 (1925), is a Supreme Court case involving the applicability of the Harrison Act. The Harrison Act was originally a taxing measure on drugs such as morphine and cocaine, but it later effectively became a prohibition on such drugs. However, the Act had a provision exempting doctors prescribing the drugs. Dr. Charles O. Linder of Spokane, Washington prescribed the drugs to addicts, which the federal government said was not a legitimate medical practice. He was prosecuted and convicted. Linder appealed, and the Supreme Court unanimously overturned his conviction, holding that the federal government overstepped its power to regulate medicine.

Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161 (1925), was a case before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the taxability, under United States tax law, of a divided interest in a bequest. It is notable (and thus appears frequently in law school casebooks) for the following holding: A bequest of income from property held in trust is taxable, even where the bequest of the entire corpus of the trust would be excluded as a gift.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court striking down an Oregon statute that required all children to attend public school. The decision significantly expanded coverage of the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to recognize personal civil liberties. The case has been cited as a precedent in more than 100 Supreme Court cases, including Roe v. Wade, and in more than 70 cases in the courts of appeals.

Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the First Amendment's provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press to apply to the governments of U.S. states. Along with Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago (1897), it was one of the first major cases involving the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. It was also one of a series of Supreme Court cases that defined the scope of the First Amendment's protection of free speech and established the standard to which a state or the federal government would be held when it criminalized speech or writing.

Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 (1925), was a US Supreme Court case that held that the US President may pardon criminal contempt of court. Grossman had been convicted of criminal contempt but was pardoned by the President. The district court subsequently sent him back to prison.

Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that upheld the warrantless searches of an automobile, which is known as the automobile exception. The case has also been cited as widening the scope of search.

Samuels v. McCurdy, 267 U.S. 188 (1925), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the application of ex post facto in the case where an object was legally purchased and possessed, but was then later banned by statute.

George W. Bush & Sons Co. v. Malloy, 267 U.S. 317 (1925), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the state statute under which the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) issued certificates of public convenience and necessity to common carriers engaged in interstate commerce violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

Yeiser v. Dysart, 267 U.S. 540 (1925), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state may attach such conditions to a law license regarding whatever matters it believes to be necessary in order to make it a public good.

Ziang Sung Wan v. United States, 266 U.S. 1 (1924), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the admissibility of a confession in a 1919 triple homicide case. Scott Seligman, writing for the Smithsonian, referred to the case as having "laid the groundwork for Americans' right to remain silent". One of the victims of the triple murder was translator Theodore Wong.

Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which established the open-fields doctrine. In an opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Court held that "the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their 'persons, houses, papers and effects', is not extended to the open fields."

Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332 (1924), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held Seattle's ordinance limiting business licenses to American citizens violated the Treaty of Amity and Commerce between Japan and the United States, which guaranteed Japanese citizens the right to conduct business in the United States.

United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar, 265 U.S. 438 (1924), was an in rem case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that apple cider vinegar is mislabelled when made from rehydrated dried apples, and not "the expressed juice of apples" known as apple cider. Douglas Packing Company's Excelsior and Sun Bright vinegars were the products at issue, and the company responded to the lawsuit.

Chung Fook v. White, 264 U.S. 443 (1924), was a Supreme Court case. In line with the plain meaning rule, the Court determined that a native-born citizen of the United States was not automatically entitled to rights granted by a statute for naturalized citizens, despite the doctrine of absurdity.

Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923), decided by U.S. Supreme Court on November 12, 1923, was a case challenging Washington Alien Land Law that is preventing aliens purchasing, using, or leasing the land. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the decision of state that Due Process and Equal Protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment and the treaty between the United States and Japan are not conflicted.

Webb v. O'Brien, 263 U.S. 313 (1923), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a ban on cropping contracts, which technically dealt with labor rather than land and were used by many Issei to avoid the restrictions of California's alien land act. It overturned a lower court decision.

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court enunciated a rule of civil procedure that would eventually become known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (also named for the later case of District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The doctrine holds that lower United States federal courts may not sit in direct review of state court decisions.[1]

Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Olsen, 262 U.S. 1 (1923), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld the Grain Futures Act as constitutional under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that held that the "Siman Act", a 1919 Nebraska law prohibiting minority languages as both the subject and medium of instruction in schools, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court's ruling is one of the earliest articulations of substantive due process.

Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court rejected the concept of taxpayer standing. The case was consolidated with Frothingham v. Mellon. The plaintiffs in the cases, Frothingham and Massachusetts, sought to prevent certain federal government expenditures which they considered to violate the Tenth Amendment. The court rejected the suits on the basis that neither plaintiff suffered particularized harm, writing: We have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional. The question may be considered only when the justification for some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such an act. ...

Rindge Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 262 U.S. 700 (1923), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a county government could use its power of eminent domain to take land from a private landowner to build a scenic highway.

Moore et al. v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6–2 that the defendants' mob-dominated trials deprived them of due process guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It reversed the district court's decision declining the petitioners' writ of habeas corpus.

Lumiere v. Mae Edna Wilder, Inc., 261 U.S. 174 (1923), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a person or corporation cannot file suits under the Copyright Act in areas in which they do not have an office and do no business.

United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that Bhagat Singh Thind, an Indian Sikh man who identified himself as an Aryan, was ineligible for naturalized citizenship in the United States. In 1919, Thind filed a petition for naturalization under the Naturalization Act of 1906 which allowed only "free white persons" and "aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent" to become United States citizens by naturalization.

Fox Film Corp. v. Knowles, 261 U.S. 326 (1923), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the statute intends that an executor, there being no widow, widower, or child, shall have the same right to renew a copyright for a second term as his testator might have exercised had he continued to survive.

Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923), is a United States Supreme Court opinion that federal minimum wage legislation for women was an unconstitutional infringement of liberty of contract, as protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 592 (1923), is a US Supreme Court case on contract law. The Supreme Court held that an implied in fact contract exists as, “an agreement … founded upon a meeting of minds, which, although not embodied in an express contract, is inferred, as a fact, from conduct of the parties showing, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, their tacit understanding.”

Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court unanimously held that public schools could constitutionally exclude unvaccinated students from attending, even if there was not an ongoing outbreak. In the case, the school district of San Antonio, Texas enacted an ordinance that prohibited any child from attending a school within the district unless they had been vaccinated against smallpox. One parent of a student who had been excluded, Rosalyn Zucht, sued on the basis that there was not a public health emergency. Justice Louis Brandeis wrote for the unanimous court that requiring students to be vaccinated was a justified use of "police power" to maintain public health and safety.

Takao Ozawa v. United States, 260 U.S. 178 (1922), was a US legal proceeding. The United States Supreme Court found Takao Ozawa, a Japanese American who was born in Japan but had lived in the United States for 20 years, ineligible for naturalization. In 1914, Ozawa filed for United States citizenship under the Naturalization Act of 1906. This act allowed only "free white persons" and "persons of African nativity or persons of African descent" to naturalize. Ozawa claimed that Japanese people should be properly classified as "free white persons".

Yamashita v. Hinkle, 260 U.S. 199 (1922), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld the constitutionality of the state of Washington's Alien Land Law. The law prohibited Asians from owning property. Washington's attorney general maintained that in order for Japanese people to fit in, their "marked physical characteristics" would have to be destroyed, that "the Negro, the Indian and the Chinaman" had already demonstrated assimilation was not possible for them. The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case, brought by Takuji Yamashita, and affirmed this race-based prohibition, citing its immediately prior issued decision in Takao Ozawa v. United States.

Liberty Oil Co. v. Condon National Bank, 260 U.S. 235 (1922), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with civil procedure and the nature of taking an appeal from the United States District Court.