List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Fuller Court
Encyclopedia
This is a chronological list of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
during the tenure of Chief Justice
Chief Justice of the United States
The Chief Justice of the United States is the head of the United States federal court system and the chief judge of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Chief Justice is one of nine Supreme Court justices; the other eight are the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States...
Melville Weston Fuller (October 8, 1888 through July 4, 1910).
| Case name | Citation | Summary |- |
Beginning of active duty of Chief Justice Melville Weston Fuller, October 8, 1888 |
|---|---|---|
| Kidd v. Pearson Kidd v. Pearson Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a distinction between manufacturing and commerce meant that an Iowa law which prohibited the manufacture of alcohol was not unconstitutional in that it did not conflict with the power of the US... |
Scope of the Commerce Clause Commerce Clause The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution . The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to... |
|
| Dent v. West Virginia Dent v. West Virginia Dent v. West Virginia, , was an important United States Supreme Court case involving the reputable practice of physicians and state laws in the late nineteenth century.-The Case:... |
state licensing of doctors | |
| Botiller v. Dominguez Botiller v. Dominguez Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U.S. 238 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court dealing with the validity of Spanish or Mexican land grants in the Mexican Cession, the region of the present day southwestern United States that was ceded to the U.S... |
validity of Spanish Spain Spain , officially the Kingdom of Spain languages]] under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In each of these, Spain's official name is as follows:;;;;;;), is a country and member state of the European Union located in southwestern Europe on the Iberian Peninsula... and Mexican Mexico The United Mexican States , commonly known as Mexico , is a federal constitutional republic in North America. It is bordered on the north by the United States; on the south and west by the Pacific Ocean; on the southeast by Guatemala, Belize, and the Caribbean Sea; and on the east by the Gulf of... land grant Land grant A land grant is a gift of real estate – land or its privileges – made by a government or other authority as a reward for services to an individual, especially in return for military service... s within the Mexican Cession Mexican Cession The Mexican Cession of 1848 is a historical name in the United States for the region of the present day southwestern United States that Mexico ceded to the U.S... |
|
| Davis v. Beason Davis v. Beason Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 , was a United States Supreme Court case affirming, by a 9-0 vote, that courts of the United States had jurisdiction to hear charges related to polygamy that is part of a religious belief, despite the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the United States... |
United States federal courts United States federal courts The United States federal courts make up the judiciary branch of federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government.-Categories:... have jurisdiction to hear charges related to polygamy Polygamy Polygamy is a marriage which includes more than two partners... even though it be part of a religious belief |
|
| Hans v. Louisiana Hans v. Louisiana Hans v. Louisiana, , was a decision of the United States Supreme Court determining that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits the citizen of a U.S. state to sue that state in a federal court.-Facts:The plaintiff, Hans, was a citizen of the state of Louisiana... |
sovereign immunity of states U.S. state A U.S. state is any one of the 50 federated states of the United States of America that share sovereignty with the federal government. Because of this shared sovereignty, an American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of his or her state of domicile. Four states use the official title of... , interpreting the Eleventh Amendment |
|
| Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad v. Minnesota | states and railway fees | |
| In re Neagle In re Neagle In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 , was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined the question of whether the Attorney General of the United States had authority to appoint U.S. Marshals as bodyguards to Supreme Court Justices.-Facts:U.S... |
authority of the U.S. Attorney General United States Attorney General The United States Attorney General is the head of the United States Department of Justice concerned with legal affairs and is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government. The attorney general is considered to be the chief lawyer of the U.S. government... to appoint U.S. Marshals as bodyguards to Supreme Court Justices |
|
| LDS Church v. United States | upheld revocation of LDS Church charter and confiscation of church property | |
| In re Ross In re Ross In re Ross or Ross v. McIntyre, , was a United States Supreme Court case decided on May 21, 1891. It dealt with the application of US law to foreign sailors on US flagged ships while in another country.... |
application of U.S. law to foreign sailors on U.S. flagged ships while in another country | |
| Holy Trinity Church v. United States | contracts with foreign citizens, religion | |
| Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois The Supreme Court decision in Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 , reaffirmed that each state in its sovereign capacity holds permanent title to all submerged lands within its borders and holds these lands in public trust. This is a foundational case for the Public Trust Doctrine... |
railroad land dispute, public trust doctrine Public trust doctrine The public trust doctrine is the principle that certain resources are preserved for public use, and that the government is required to maintain them for the public's reasonable use.-Origins:... |
|
| Nix v. Hedden Nix v. Hedden Nix v. Hedden, , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that affirmed the lower court ruling that the tomato should be classified under customs regulations as a vegetable rather than a fruit... |
status of the tomato Tomato The word "tomato" may refer to the plant or the edible, typically red, fruit which it bears. Originating in South America, the tomato was spread around the world following the Spanish colonization of the Americas, and its many varieties are now widely grown, often in greenhouses in cooler... as fruit or vegetable under Tariff Act of 1883 |
|
| Schillinger v. United States Schillinger v. United States Schillinger v. United States, , is an 1894 decision of the United States Supreme Court, holding that a suit for patent infringement cannot be entertained against the United States, because patent infringement is a tort and the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for intentional... |
sovereign immunity Sovereign immunity Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution.... forbids suit against the Federal government for patent infringement Patent infringement Patent infringement is the commission of a prohibited act with respect to a patented invention without permission from the patent holder. Permission may typically be granted in the form of a license. The definition of patent infringement may vary by jurisdiction, but it typically includes using or... |
|
| United States v. E. C. Knight Co. United States v. E. C. Knight Co. United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 , also known as the "Sugar Trust Case,'" was a United States Supreme Court case that limited the government's power to control monopolies... |
antitrust Antitrust The United States antitrust law is a body of laws that prohibits anti-competitive behavior and unfair business practices. Antitrust laws are intended to encourage competition in the marketplace. These competition laws make illegal certain practices deemed to hurt businesses or consumers or both,... action; “Sugar Trust Case” |
|
| Sparf v. United States Sparf v. United States Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal judges were not required to inform jurors of their inherent ability to judge the law in a case. The decision asserted that the court could mislead jurors and inform them that they... |
jury instructions Jury instructions Jury instructions are the set of legal rules that jurors should follow when the jury is deciding a civil or criminal case. Jury instructions are given to the jury by the jury instructor, who usually reads them aloud to the jury... |
|
| Coffin v. United States Coffin v. United States Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 , was an appellate case before the United States Supreme Court in 1895 which established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes.... |
the presumption of innocence Presumption of innocence The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many... |
|
| In re Debs In re Debs In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564 , was a United States Supreme Court decision handed down concerning Eugene V. Debs and labor unions. Debs, president of the American Railway Union, had been involved in the Pullman Strike earlier in 1894 and challenged the federal injunction ordering the strikers back to... |
strikes and interstate commerce | |
| Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, , aff'd on reh'g, , with a ruling of 5–4, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the unapportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and... |
income tax Income tax in the United States In the United States, a tax is imposed on income by the Federal, most states, and many local governments. The income tax is determined by applying a tax rate, which may increase as income increases, to taxable income as defined. Individuals and corporations are directly taxable, and estates and... and tariffs |
|
| Hilton v. Guyot Hilton v. Guyot Hilton v. Guyot, , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the court described the factors to be used when considering the application of comity.- Opinion of the Court :... |
doctrine of comity Comity In law, comity specifically refers to legal reciprocity—the principle that one jurisdiction will extend certain courtesies to other nations , particularly by recognizing the validity and effect of their executive, legislative, and judicial acts... |
|
| Rosen v. United States Rosen v. United States Not to be confused with United States v. RosenRosen v. United States, , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court dealing with the concept of obscenity... |
defendant's ability to inspect evidence at obscenity trial overcame objection that indictment was too vague | |
| Geer v. Connecticut Geer v. Connecticut Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 , was a United States Supreme Court decision, which dealt with the transportation of wild fowl over state lines. Geer held that the states owned the wild animals within their borders and could strictly regulate their management and harvest... |
states U.S. state A U.S. state is any one of the 50 federated states of the United States of America that share sovereignty with the federal government. Because of this shared sovereignty, an American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of his or her state of domicile. Four states use the official title of... owned the wild animals within their borders and can strictly regulate their management and harvest |
|
| Talton v. Mayes Talton v. Mayes Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376, was a 1896 United States Supreme Court case, in which the court decided that the individual rights protections, which limit federal, and later, state governments, do not apply to tribal government. It reaffirmed earlier decisions, such as the 1831 Cherokee Nation v... |
individual rights in U.S. Constitution not applicable to tribal governments | |
| Plessy v. Ferguson Plessy v. Ferguson Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 , is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in private businesses , under the doctrine of "separate but equal".The decision was handed... |
segregation; "separate but equal" | |
| United States v. Ball United States v. Ball United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held considered the effect of an acquittal or conviction in a previous trial based on a defective indictment... |
double jeopardy Double jeopardy Double jeopardy is a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same, or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction... |
|
| United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U.S. 290 , was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Sherman Act applied to the railroad industry, even though the U.S... |
railroads and rate fixing | |
| Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Co. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Co. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Co., 167 U.S. 479 , was an important early U.S. Supreme Court case in the development of American administrative law.-Legal principle:... |
powers of an administrative agency | |
| Barrett v. United States Barrett v. United States Barrett v. United States, 169 U.S. 218 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that South Carolina had never effectively been subdivided into separate judicial districts... |
South Carolina South Carolina South Carolina is a state in the Deep South of the United States that borders Georgia to the south, North Carolina to the north, and the Atlantic Ocean to the east. Originally part of the Province of Carolina, the Province of South Carolina was one of the 13 colonies that declared independence... had not been subdivided into separate federal judicial districts |
|
| Holden v. Hardy Holden v. Hardy Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a Utah state law limiting the number of work hours for miners and smelters as a legitimate exercise of the police power... |
working hours of miners | |
| United States v. Wong Kim Ark United States v. Wong Kim Ark United States v. Wong Kim Ark, , was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent about the role of jus soli as a factor in determining a person's claim to United States citizenship... |
citizenship and race | |
| Hawker v. New York Hawker v. New York Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189 , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a New York state law preventing convicted felons from practicing medicine, even when the felony conviction occurred before the law was enacted.... |
character and doctor’s licenses | |
| Williams v. Mississippi Williams v. Mississippi Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U.S. 213 is a United States Supreme Court case that reviewed provisions of the state constitution that set requirements for voter registration... |
literacy test Literacy test A literacy test, in the context of United States political history, refers to the government practice of testing the literacy of potential citizens at the federal level, and potential voters at the state level. The federal government first employed literacy tests as part of the immigration process... s |
|
| Brown v. New Jersey Brown v. New Jersey Brown v. New Jersey, , is a United States Supreme Court case which held that the use of a struck jury did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.-Background:... |
use of a struck jury Struck jury A struck jury is a multi-step process of selecting a jury from a pool. First potential jurors are eliminated for hardship. Second jurors are eliminated for cause by conducting voir dire until there is a pool available that is exactly the size of the final jury plus the number of peremptory... |
|
| Malony v. Adsit | trial judge must authenticate bill of exceptions | |
| Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528 was a class action suit decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is a landmark case, in that it sanctioned de jure segregation of races in American schools. The decision was overruled by Brown v... |
1900–1909
| Case name | Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| The Paquete Habana The Paquete Habana Paquete Habana.; The Lola, 175 U.S. 677 , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that reversed an earlier court decision allowing the capture of fishing vessels under Prize... |
prize Prize (law) Prize is a term used in admiralty law to refer to equipment, vehicles, vessels, and cargo captured during armed conflict. The most common use of prize in this sense is the capture of an enemy ship and its cargo as a prize of war. In the past, it was common that the capturing force would be allotted... in admiralty law Admiralty law Admiralty law is a distinct body of law which governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of both domestic law governing maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private entities which operate vessels on the oceans... and customary international law Customary international law Customary international law are those aspects of international law that derive from custom. Along with general principles of law and treaties, custom is considered by the International Court of Justice, jurists, the United Nations, and its member states to be among the primary sources of... |
|
| Marks v. Shoup | Property issues | |
| Insular Cases Insular Cases The Insular Cases are several U.S. Supreme Court cases concerning the status of territories acquired by the U.S. in the Spanish-American War . The name "insular" derives from the fact that these territories are islands and were administered by the War Department's Bureau of Insular Affairs... |
||
| DeLima v. Bidwell DeLima v. Bidwell DeLima v. Bidwell, , was one of a group of the first Insular Cases decided by the United States Supreme Court.The case was argued on January 8-11, 1901 and was decided on May 27, 1901.... |
constitutional status of Puerto Rico Puerto Rico Puerto Rico , officially the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico , is an unincorporated territory of the United States, located in the northeastern Caribbean, east of the Dominican Republic and west of both the United States Virgin Islands and the British Virgin Islands.Puerto Rico comprises an... and the Philippines Philippines The Philippines , officially known as the Republic of the Philippines , is a country in Southeast Asia in the western Pacific Ocean. To its north across the Luzon Strait lies Taiwan. West across the South China Sea sits Vietnam... |
|
| Goetze v. United States | ||
| Armstrong v. United States | ||
| Downes v. Bidwell Downes v. Bidwell Downes v. Bidwell, , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided whether United States territories were subject to the provisions and protections of the United States Constitution. This question is sometimes stated as "does the Constitution follow the flag?". The resulting decision... |
||
| Huus v. New York & Porto Rico S.S. Co. | ||
| Dooley v. United States | ||
| Fourteen Diamond Rings v. United States | ||
| Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, was a United States Supreme Court case brought against the US government by the Kiowa chief Lone Wolf, who charged that Native American tribes under the Medicine Lodge Treaty had been defrauded of land by Congressional actions in violation of the treaty.The Court declared... |
power of Congress to abrogate treaties with Native American tribes Native Americans in the United States Native Americans in the United States are the indigenous peoples in North America within the boundaries of the present-day continental United States, parts of Alaska, and the island state of Hawaii. They are composed of numerous, distinct tribes, states, and ethnic groups, many of which survive as... |
|
| Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Company Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Company Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Company, 188 U.S. 239 , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court found that advertisements were protected by copyright.-Facts:... |
copyright Copyright Copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time... protection of illustrations made for advertisements |
|
| Champion v. Ames Champion v. Ames Champion v. Ames, 188 U.S. 321 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that trafficking lottery tickets constituted interstate commerce that could be regulated by the U.S. Congress under the Commerce Clause.... |
Congressional Commerce Clause Commerce Clause The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution . The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to... regulation of lottery tickets |
|
| Giles v. Harris Giles v. Harris Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475 , was an early 20th century United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a state constitution's requirements for voter registration and qualifications... |
voting rights, Eleventh Amendment Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was passed by the Congress on March 4, 1794, and was ratified on February 7, 1795, deals with each state's sovereign immunity. This amendment was adopted in order to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v... |
|
| Hawaii v. Manikichi | sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases Insular Cases The Insular Cases are several U.S. Supreme Court cases concerning the status of territories acquired by the U.S. in the Spanish-American War . The name "insular" derives from the fact that these territories are islands and were administered by the War Department's Bureau of Insular Affairs... |
|
| Missouri, Kansas, & Texas Railway Company of Texas v. Clay May Missouri, Kansas, & Texas Railway Company of Texas v. Clay May Missouri, Kansas, & Texas Railway Company of Texas v. Clay May, 194 U.S. 267 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that a Texas law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by penalizing only railroad companies for allowing certain weeds to... |
14th Amendment permits law which penalizes railroads for allowing weeds to grow | |
| Kepner v. United States | sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases Insular Cases The Insular Cases are several U.S. Supreme Court cases concerning the status of territories acquired by the U.S. in the Spanish-American War . The name "insular" derives from the fact that these territories are islands and were administered by the War Department's Bureau of Insular Affairs... |
|
| Dorr v. United States | sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases Insular Cases The Insular Cases are several U.S. Supreme Court cases concerning the status of territories acquired by the U.S. in the Spanish-American War . The name "insular" derives from the fact that these territories are islands and were administered by the War Department's Bureau of Insular Affairs... |
|
| Gonzales v. Williams | Puerto Ricans and illegal aliens | |
| Northern Securities Co. v. United States Northern Securities Co. v. United States Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 , was an important ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled 5 to 4 against the stockholders of the Great Northern and Northern Pacific railroad companies, who had essentially formed a monopoly, and to dissolve the Northern Securities... |
Antitrust Antitrust The United States antitrust law is a body of laws that prohibits anti-competitive behavior and unfair business practices. Antitrust laws are intended to encourage competition in the marketplace. These competition laws make illegal certain practices deemed to hurt businesses or consumers or both,... , application of the Sherman Antitrust Act Sherman Antitrust Act The Sherman Antitrust Act requires the United States federal government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies, and organizations suspected of violating the Act. It was the first Federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies, and today still forms the basis for most antitrust litigation by... |
|
| Rasmussen v. United States | sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases Insular Cases The Insular Cases are several U.S. Supreme Court cases concerning the status of territories acquired by the U.S. in the Spanish-American War . The name "insular" derives from the fact that these territories are islands and were administered by the War Department's Bureau of Insular Affairs... |
|
| Lochner v. New York Lochner v. New York Lochner vs. New York, , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that held a "liberty of contract" was implicit in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case involved a New York law that limited the number of hours that a baker could work each day to ten, and limited the... |
freedom of contract, substantive due process | |
| Harris v. Balk Harris v. Balk Harris v. Balk, was a United States Supreme Court case that exemplified the bizarre types of jurisdiction state courts could assert through quasi in rem actions before International Shoe's "minimum contacts" test replaced Pennoyer's principles of "power and notice".This case involved three... |
quasi in rem Quasi in rem Quasi in rem is a legal term referring to a legal action based on property rights of a person absent from the jurisdiction. In the American legal system the state can assert power over an individual simply based on the fact that this individual has property in the state... jurisdiction |
|
| Chicago Board of Trade v. Christie Grain Chicago Board of Trade v. Christie Grain Chicago Board of Trade v. Christie Grain, 198 U.S. 236 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which upheld sales of American grain for future delivery provided for by the rules of the Chicago Board of Trade of the state of Illinois. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr... |
upholding power of Chicago Board of Trade Chicago Board of Trade The Chicago Board of Trade , established in 1848, is the world's oldest futures and options exchange. More than 50 different options and futures contracts are traded by over 3,600 CBOT members through open outcry and eTrading. Volumes at the exchange in 2003 were a record breaking 454 million... to regulate futures contract Futures contract In finance, a futures contract is a standardized contract between two parties to exchange a specified asset of standardized quantity and quality for a price agreed today with delivery occurring at a specified future date, the delivery date. The contracts are traded on a futures exchange... s |
|
| Hale v. Henkel | witness testimony in antitrust cases | |
| Northwestern National Life Insurance Co. v. Riggs Northwestern National Life Insurance Co. v. Riggs Northwestern National Life Insurance Co. v. Riggs, , was an important United States Supreme Court case dealing with corporations conducting business and the power of individual states to regulate how corporations may conduct business.-Facts:... |
upheld power of states to regulate insurance contracts against Fourteenth Amendment challenge | |
| United States v. Shipp United States v. Shipp United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563, was a ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States with regard to events surrounding a lynching in Tennessee. It is the only Supreme Court criminal trial in its history.-Background:... |
Only criminal trial in the court's history. Lynching Lynching Lynching is an extrajudicial execution carried out by a mob, often by hanging, but also by burning at the stake or shooting, in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate, control, or otherwise manipulate a population of people. It is related to other means of social control that... . |
|
| Adair v. United States Adair v. United States Adair v. United States, , is a United States Supreme Court case which upheld "yellow-dog" contracts that forbade workers from joining labor unions. The decision reaffirmed the doctrine of freedom of contract which was first recognized by the Court in Allgeyer v. Louisiana... |
"Yellow Dog contract" | |
| Loewe v. Lawlor Loewe v. Lawlor Loewe v. Lawlor, is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the application of antitrust laws to labor unions. The Court's decision had the effect of outlawing secondary boycotts as violative of the Sherman Antitrust Act, in the face of labor union protests that their actions affected only... |
Sherman Antitrust Act Sherman Antitrust Act The Sherman Antitrust Act requires the United States federal government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies, and organizations suspected of violating the Act. It was the first Federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies, and today still forms the basis for most antitrust litigation by... applied against labor union boycott |
|
| Muller v. Oregon Muller v. Oregon Muller v. Oregon, , was a landmark decision in United States Supreme Court history, as it justifies both sex discrimination and usage of labor laws during the time period... |
protective labor laws, protection of women | |
| White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company, 209 U.S. 1 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that manufacturers of music rolls for player pianos did not have to pay royalties to the composers... |
manufacturers of player piano Player piano A player piano is a self-playing piano, containing a pneumatic or electro-mechanical mechanism that operates the piano action via pre-programmed music perforated paper, or in rare instances, metallic rolls. The rise of the player piano grew with the rise of the mass-produced piano for the home in... s need not pay royalties Royalties Royalties are usage-based payments made by one party to another for the right to ongoing use of an asset, sometimes an intellectual property... to copyright Copyright Copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time... holders of music |
|
| Ex parte Young Ex parte Young Ex parte Young, , is a United States Supreme Court case that allows suits in federal courts against officials acting on behalf of states of the union to proceed despite the State's Sovereign immunity, when the State acted unconstitutionally.-Facts:... |
exception to sovereign immunity Sovereign immunity Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution.... under the Eleventh Amendment |
|
| Ware & Leland v. Mobile County Ware & Leland v. Mobile County Ware & Leland v. Mobile County, 209 U.S. 405 , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that contracts for the sales of cotton for future delivery that do not oblige interstate shipments are not subjects of interstate commerce... |
contracts for the sales of cotton Cotton Cotton is a soft, fluffy staple fiber that grows in a boll, or protective capsule, around the seeds of cotton plants of the genus Gossypium. The fiber is almost pure cellulose. The botanical purpose of cotton fiber is to aid in seed dispersal.... for future delivery that do not oblige interstate shipments are not subjects of interstate commerce, and are taxable by states |
|
| Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, , was a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the scope of rights accorded owners of a copyright. 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... |
First-sale doctrine First-sale doctrine The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976,... , copyright holder cannot control resale prices by use of licenses |
|
| Londoner v. City and County of Denver | role of due process in administrative rulemaking | |
| Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the principle that patent holders have no obligation to use their patent.- Facts :... |
patent and antitrust | |
| Berea College v. Kentucky Berea College v. Kentucky Berea College v. Kentucky , 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... |
state laws and segregation of educational facilities | |
| Twining v. New Jersey Twining v. New Jersey Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 , presented an early standard of the Supreme Court's Incorporation Doctrine by establishing that while certain rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights might apply to the states under the 14th amendment's due process clause, the 5th amendment's right against... |
Fifth Amendment Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215... does not apply to state trials |
|
| Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 , 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... |
federal question jurisdiction Federal question jurisdiction Federal question jurisdiction is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the Constitution or law of the... , the "well-pleaded complaint rule" |
|
| Bailey v. Alabama | peonage laws and the Thirteenth Amendment Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished and continues to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, passed by the House on January 31, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865. On... |
|
| Moyer v. Peabody Moyer v. Peabody Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78 , 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... |
citizens' rights during insurrection | |
| Welch v. Swasey Welch v. Swasey Welch v. Swasey, 214 U.S. 91 , 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, limit the height of buildings in a certain quarter of a city, do not violate the Constitution of the... |
Massachusetts Massachusetts The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a state in the New England region of the northeastern United States of America. It is bordered by Rhode Island and Connecticut to the south, New York to the west, and Vermont and New Hampshire to the north; at its east lies the Atlantic Ocean. As of the 2010... ' statute restricting building heights is constitutional |
|