United States Reports

Patsone v. Pennsylvania , 232 U.S. 138 (1914) was a U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld Pennsylvania's Act of May 8, 1909, deeming it unlawful for "unnaturalized foreign born residents" to kill wild animals, except for when defending their property or person and only by means of a pistol; the Pennsylvania statue barred unnaturalized foreign born residents from possession of shotguns or rifles for any reason. Although the case was directly addressing Second Amendment rights of noncitizens in the context of wild game, it also brought forward discussions of Fourteenth Amendment rights for noncitizens, State's rights to wildlife, and symmetry of justice.

United States v. Young, 232 U.S. 155 (1914), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Criminal Code of 1909 does not require indictments for mail fraud to show that the fraudulent mailed statements were directly shown to the defrauded party.

Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It also prevented local officers from securing evidence by means prohibited under the federal exclusionary rule and giving it to their federal colleagues. It was not until the case of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), that the exclusionary rule was deemed to apply to state courts as well.

United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1913), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding whether the federal government's law prohibiting liquor on the land of Santa Clara Pueblo impermissibly infringed on the State of New Mexico's police power under the equal footing doctrine. In a unanimous decision, the Court upheld the law and Congress's ability to recognize and regulate tribes. Citing broad congressional authority in Kagama, recognition of tribes subject to the guardianship of the federal government falls on Congress, not the Court, as long as recognition is not "arbitrary" and actually reflects "distinctly Indian communities." The Supreme Court held the Pueblos to be dependent Indian communities.

Straus v. American Publishers Association, 231 U.S. 222 (1913), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held an agreement that is manifestly anti-competitive and illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act cannot be justified by copyright.

Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913), was a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that addressed the question of corporate taxation.

Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell, 229 U.S. 1 (1913), was a 1913 United States Supreme Court decision involving whether a purchaser of a patented product bearing a price-fixing notice incurs guilt of patent infringement by reselling the product at a price lower than that which the notice commands. A divided Court (5–4) held that it was not. Bauer & Cie, a German company, was the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 601,995, covering Sanatogen, a water-soluble drug product (patent medicine), advertised as the "King of Tonics" and a strength-giving "concentrated scientific food." Bauer sold the patented product in the United States through its exclusive sales agent, Hehmeyer, under a license agreement. Sanatogen was sold with this notice on each bag: Notice to the Retailer.

Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447 (1913), is a case pertaining to extradition of a U.S. citizen to Italy. In 1910, Porter Charlton confessed in New York to having murdered his wife in Italy. The Italian vice consul requested Charlton's extradition. Hon. John A. Blair, one of the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of New Jersey, suspended Charlton's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a warrant was issued for his arrest. This order for extradition was approved by Secretary of State Philander C. Knox.

The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co., 228 U.S. 22 (1913), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that federal question jurisdiction is based on the affirmative pleadings of the plaintiff and their choices of what law to use, not on the federal defenses that the plaintiff anticipates the defendant might use or that the defendant actually uses.

Adams v. Milwaukee, 228 U.S. 572 (1913), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the local ordinance ordering the confiscation of tainted milk was constitutional.

Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308 (1913), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that held that the United States Congress could not regulate prostitution per se, which was strictly the province of the states. Congress could, however, regulate interstate travel for purposes of coercing prostitution or other "immoral purposes." The case revolved around an offer to transport women from New Orleans to Beaumont, Texas for the purpose of prostitution. The Supreme Court upheld prosecution under the Mann Act with Justice Joseph McKenna emphasizing the right of Congress to protect against coercion in a space that states could not (e.g., in interstate commerce where neither state has jurisdiction).

Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 226 U.S. 20 (1912), also known as the Bathtub Trust case, was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held unanimously that ownership of patent rights does not immunize the owner from the antitrust laws prohibiting combinations in unreasonable restraint of trade. The Court famously said that the Sherman Act "is its own measure of right and wrong, of what it permits or forbids, and the judgment of the courts cannot be set up against it in a supposed accommodation of its policy with the good intention of parties, and, it may be, of some good results." A 1917 commentary said, "This decision has become the leading case on the subject of the relation of the patent law and Sherman law to each other."

Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347 (1912), is a United States Supreme Court criminal case interpreting attempt. The court held that for an act to be a criminal attempt, it must be so near the result that the danger of its success must be very large. The case is notable for Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's formulation in the dissent that attempt is present when a defendant's conduct bears "a dangerous proximity to success."

Henry v. A.B. Dick Co., 224 U.S. 1 (1912), was a 1912 United States Supreme Court case which held that a patent owner could impose conditions on the use of a patented product even after its sale—therefore individuals who knowingly violated, or aided others in violating, these conditions could be held liable for contributory infringement of said patent. In 1917, the Supreme Court overruled Henry v. A.B. Dick Co. in Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co.

United States v. Terminal Railroad Association, 224 U.S. 383 (1912), is the first case in which the United States Supreme Court held it a violation of the antitrust laws to refuse to a competitor access to a facility necessary for entering or remaining in the market (an "essential facility"). In this case a combination of firms was carrying out the restrictive practice, rather than a single firm, which made the conduct susceptible to challenge under section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1) rather than under the heightened standard of section 2 of that act (15 U.S.C. § 2). Even so, the case was brought under both sections.

Quong Wing v. Kirkendall, 223 U.S. 59 (1912), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a State does not deny the equal protection of the laws merely by adjusting its revenue laws and taxing system in such a way as to favor certain industries or forms of industry. This was one of the earliest cases to articulate the principle of rational basis review.

Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving the constitutionality of the citizens' initiative and the enforceability of the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Edward Douglass White, a unanimous Court rejected a corporation's argument that the Guarantee Clause forbade Oregon's initiative process, citing Luther v. Borden to conclude that such claims presented political questions and thus were non-justiciable.

Ferris v. Frohman, 223 U.S. 424 (1912), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held an unauthorized public production of an unpublished play does not invalidate the play owner's common law copyright.

Southern Railway Company v. United States, 222 U.S. 20 (1911), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that under the Commerce Clause, the U.S. Congress can regulate safety on intrastate rail traffic because there is a close and substantial connection to interstate traffic.

Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros., 222 U.S. 55 (1911), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held producing a motion picture based on a dramatic work can be copyright infringement. The producer of the motion picture is liable even they are not the exhibitor. This does not extend to a restriction of the dramatic work's ideas; it is a recognition of the author's monopoly powers granted by Congress. The case involved a 1907 film adaptation of the 1880 novel Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ by Lew Wallace.

Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled that John D. Rockefeller's petroleum conglomerate Standard Oil had illegally monopolized the American petroleum industry and ordered the company to break itself up. The decision also held, however, that U.S. antitrust law bans only "unreasonable" restraints on trade, an interpretation that came to be known as the "rule of reason".

United States v. American Tobacco Company, 221 U.S. 106 (1911), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the combination in this case is one in restraint of trade and an attempt to monopolize the business of tobacco in interstate commerce within the prohibitions of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. As a result, the American Tobacco Company was split into four competitors.

Gompers v. Buck's Stove and Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (1911), was a ruling by the United States Supreme Court involving a case of contempt for violating the terms of an injunction restraining labor union leaders from a boycott or from publishing any statement that there was or had been a boycott.

In United States v. Johnson, 221 U.S. 488 (1911), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the misbranding provisions of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 did not pertain to false curative or therapeutic statements but only false statements as to the identity of the drug. In 1912, Congress responded with the Sherley Amendments, which addressed the perceived lack of enforcement of fraud related to therapeutic claims. The Act was amended to prohibit false and fraudulent claims of health benefits but enforcement under the amendment required proof of fraudulent intent, a difficult standard.

Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that held that the newly created state of Oklahoma was permitted to move its capital city from Guthrie to Oklahoma City, notwithstanding the Enabling Act provision that prohibited it from being moved from Guthrie until after 1913.

American Lithographic Co. v. Werkmeister, 221 U.S. 603 (1911), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a corporation defendant in a suit to enforce copyright infringement penalties is not entitled to a Fourth or Fifth Amendment objection to the admission of its bookkeeping entries into evidence when they are produced under a subpoena duces tecum.

Virginia v. West Virginia, 220 U.S. 1 (1911), is a unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the state of West Virginia was bound by its constitution to pay one-third of the outstanding debt of the commonwealth of Virginia as of January 1, 1861. In its ruling, the Supreme Court concluded that the geographic narrowness of the port and road improvements made by Virginia (most of which occurred outside West Virginia's current borders) were incurred by the people of the entire state and did not discharge West Virginia's duty to pay. The Court also held that Virginia's attempts to discharge its debts while its negotiations with West Virginia continued did not absolve West Virginia of its duty to pay.

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a taxpayer challenged the validity of a federal income tax on corporations. The privilege of incorporation is a state function, and the challengers argued that only the states should tax corporations.

Hills & Co. v. Hoover, 220 U.S. 329 (1911), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the owner of a copyright is restricted to a single action against another to find, seize, and seek penalties for allegedly infringing copies of a work.

Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., (220 U.S. 373) (1911), was a United States Supreme Court case on anti-trust grounds that ruled that resale price maintenance, a form of vertical restraint, is illegal per se. The Dr. Miles Medical Co. (Dr. Miles), now Miles Laboratories, was founded in 1884. In an era when most products were snake oil, Dr. Miles invented a patent medicine that had an actually useful, if somewhat toxic, active ingredient: bromides. John D. Park & Sons Co. (Park & Sons) was a discount drug reseller that sought to profit off the advertising of Dr. Miles' remedies while selling Dr. Miles products at rock bottom prices. While lower prices drove sales for Park & Sons, it cut into the profits of Dr. Miles. To fix this, Dr.

United States v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506 (1911), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The case tested the constitutionality of the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, which delegated the power to make rules and regulations regarding the use of federal Forest Service lands and to punish violations of these rules as a criminal offense to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (a part of the Federal Executive Branch). The Court ruled, after a re-argument, that such a delegation of rulemaking power was permissible because it was separate from true legislative power (which is only vested in Congress as the legislative branch).

Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1911), was a United States Supreme Court case that overturned the peonage laws of Alabama. Bailey challenged an Alabama law that effectively criminalized leaving a job after receiving an advance payment, arguing that it enforced involuntary labor, but he initially lost a case in the Fuller Court, despite support from the Roosevelt administration. When the case reached the Court again Bailey won in a 5-2 decision. Oliver Wendell Holmes dissented.

Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court delineated the authority of United States federal courts to hear certain kinds of cases under the Case or Controversy Clause of the United States Constitution.

Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498 (1911), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that while normally, in order for the court to hear a case, there must still be a controversy outstanding, when the issue was such that it would be of short duration, and would most likely become moot before appellate review could take place, and that the issue was likely to reoccur, then the court could hear the issue.

Franklin v. South Carolina, 218 U.S. 161 (1910) appealed the conviction of Pink Franklin for the murder of South Carolina Constable Henry H. Valentine in 1907. Franklin was a sharecropper who wished to leave his employer although his employer had advanced Franklin wages under a contract based on the so-called "peonage laws". A warrant was obtained and when Valentine came to the house, a shootout occurred, killing Valentine and injuring Franklin, his wife Patsy, and another constable who was there. The defense included claims that Franklin acted in self-defense and that the peonage laws were unjust.

Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Company, 218 U.S. 357 (1910), was a United States Supreme Court case involving jurisdiction over a suit involving a citizen from another state beyond the Court's jurisdiction, suing a New Jersey Corporation, another out of state citizen. The Court asserted that under the statute jurisdiction was improper because neither party was a citizen in the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. The Court followed the decision in Wetmore v. Tennessee Copper Company another case decided later that same year.

Wetmore v. Tennessee Copper Company, 218 U.S. 369 (1910), was a United States Supreme Court case involving jurisdiction over a suit involving a wealthy landowner from Rhode Island, U.S. Senator George P. Wetmore, suing a New Jersey Corporation for emitting toxic fumes onto land he owned in Tennessee. The Court followed its precedent in Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Company, in asserting that jurisdiction was improper because neither party was a citizen in the jurisdiction of the Circuit court, but jurisdiction was proper over the foreign British corporation that was joined to the suit.

Maryland v. West Virginia, 217 U.S. 1 (1910), is a 9-to-0 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the boundary between the American states of Maryland and West Virginia is the south bank of the North Branch Potomac River. The decision also affirmed criteria for adjudicating boundary disputes between states, which said that decisions should be based on the specific facts of the case, applying the principles of law and equity in such a way that least disturbs private rights and title to land.

Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court. It is primarily notable as it pertains to the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. It is cited concerning the political and legal relationship between the United States and the Philippines, which at that time was considered a U.S. colony (see Philippine–American War for more information). The decision stated that the definition of what constitutes a "cruel and unusual" punishment is not tied to narrow historic interpretations.

Caliga v. Inter Ocean Newspaper Co., 215 U.S. 182 (1909), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a person cannot file a second copyright claim to amend the first, even if the first was determined to be invalid.

Welch v. Swasey, 214 U.S. 91 (1909), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the statutes of Massachusetts, chap. 333 of the Acts of 1904, and chap. 383 of the Acts of 1905, limiting the height of buildings in a certain quarter of a city, do not violate the Constitution of the United States. Francis C. Welch owned property in a residential section of Boston where building height was legislatively limited to 100 feet (30.5 m). In other, more commercial sections of the city, the legislation permitted building height up to 125 feet (38.1 m).

Bong v. Campbell Art Co., 214 U.S. 236 (1909), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, under the International Copyright Act of 1891, A copyright cannot be granted to a non-citizen whose country has not been acknowledged as in a reciprocal copyright arrangement with the United States by a formal presidential proclamation. Because the non-citizen is not granted a copyright, they cannot assign a copyright for a work to a citizen of a country with American copyright privileges. That citizen cannot register a copyright for the work. The case concerned the painting "Dolce Far Niente" by Daniel Hernández Morillo, a citizen of Peru.

Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78 (1909), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the governor and officers of a state National Guard, acting in good faith and under authority of law, may imprison without probable cause a citizen of the United States in a time of insurrection and deny that citizen the right of habeas corpus.

Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45 (1908), was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court that upheld the rights of states to prohibit private educational institutions chartered as corporations from admitting both black and white students. Like the related Plessy v. Ferguson case, it was also marked by a strongly worded dissent by John Marshall Harlan. The ruling also is a minor landmark on the nature of corporate personhood.

Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908), was a case of the U.S. Supreme Court. In this case, the Court established the Incorporation Doctrine by concluding that while certain rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights might apply to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Fifth Amendment's right against self-incrimination is not incorporated. The Twining decision was overturned by the decision in Malloy v. Hogan in 1964, in which the Court incorporated the right against self-incrimination.

Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that under the existing statutory scheme, federal question jurisdiction could not be predicated on a plaintiff's anticipation that the defendant would raise a federal statute as a defense. Instead, such jurisdiction can only arise from a complaint by the plaintiff that the defendant has directly violated some provision of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. This reading of the federal question jurisdiction statute is now known as the well-pleaded complaint rule.

North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U.S. 306 (1908), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that no hearing was necessary prior to the seizure, condemnation, and destruction of food which was unwholesome and unfit for use.

Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908), was a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the scope of rights accorded owners of a copyright versus owners of a particular copy of a copyrighted work. This was a case of first impression concerning whether the copyright laws permit an owner to control a purchaser's subsequent sale of a copyrighted work.

Scribner v. Straus, 210 U.S. 352 (1908), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held copyright holders did not have the statutory right to control the price of subsequent resales of lawfully purchased copies of their work. The court decided this case immediately after Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, which featured the same defendants, Isador Straus and Nathan Straus, being accused of copyright infringement for the same reason by a different company. The result of Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus held sway here.

Globe Newspaper Co. v. Walker, 210 U.S. 356 (1908), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, because Congress has provided a remedy for those whose copyrights in maps are infringed, a civil action at common law for money damages cannot be maintained against the infringers.