This is a list of cases reported in volume 302 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1937 and 1938.
| Supreme Court of the United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
 | |
| 38°53′26″N 77°00′16″W / 38.89056°N 77.00444°W | |
| Established | March 4, 1789 |
| Location | Washington, D.C. |
| Coordinates | 38°53′26″N 77°00′16″W / 38.89056°N 77.00444°W |
| Composition method | Presidential nomination with Senate confirmation |
| Authorised by | Constitution of the United States, Art. III, § 1 |
| Judge term length | life tenure, subject to impeachment and removal |
| Number of positions | 9 (by statute) |
| Website | supremecourt |
Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 302 U.S.
editThe Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices).[1] Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice).
When the cases in volume 302 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members:
| Portrait | Justice | Office | Home State | Succeeded | Date confirmed by the Senate (Vote) |
Tenure on Supreme Court |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Charles Evans Hughes | Chief Justice | New York | William Howard Taft | February 13, 1930 (52–26) |
February 24, 1930 – June 30, 1941 (Retired) |
|
James Clark McReynolds | Associate Justice | Tennessee | Horace Harmon Lurton | August 29, 1914 (44–6) |
October 12, 1914 – January 31, 1941 (Retired) |
|
Louis Brandeis | Associate Justice | Massachusetts | Joseph Rucker Lamar | June 1, 1916 (47–22) |
June 5, 1916 – February 13, 1939 (Retired) |
|
George Sutherland | Associate Justice | Utah | John Hessin Clarke | September 5, 1922 (Acclamation) |
October 2, 1922 – January 17, 1938 (Retired) |
|
Pierce Butler | Associate Justice | Minnesota | William R. Day | December 21, 1922 (61–8) |
January 2, 1923 – November 16, 1939 (Died) |
|
Harlan F. Stone | Associate Justice | New York | Joseph McKenna | February 5, 1925 (71–6) |
March 2, 1925 – July 2, 1941 (Continued as chief justice) |
|
Owen Roberts | Associate Justice | Pennsylvania | Edward Terry Sanford | May 20, 1930 (Acclamation) |
June 2, 1930 – July 31, 1945 (Resigned) |
|
Benjamin N. Cardozo | Associate Justice | New York | Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. | February 24, 1932 (Acclamation) |
March 14, 1932 – July 9, 1938 (Died) |
|
Hugo Black | Associate Justice | Alabama | Willis Van Devanter | August 17, 1937 (63–16) |
August 19, 1937 – September 17, 1971 (Retired) |
Notable Cases in 302 U.S.
editBogardus v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
editIn Bogardus v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 302 U.S. 34 (1937), the Supreme Court held that a distribution of money by a corporation to the company's past and present employees who had no current ties with the corporation, in recognition of their past service, was a non-taxable gift and not "compensation for personal services".
James, State Tax Commissioner v. Dravo Contracting Company
editIn James, State Tax Commissioner v. Dravo Contracting Company, 302 U.S. 134 (1937), the Supreme Court held that a state's corporate income tax did not violate the Supremacy Clause (Article Six, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution by taxing the Federal government of the United States. It was the first time the Court had upheld a tax on the federal government. The decision is considered a landmark in the field of federal tax immunity, underpins modern legal interpretations of the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution, and established the "legal incidence test" for tax cases.
Puerto Rico v. Shell Company (P.R.), Ltd.
editPuerto Rico v. Shell Company (P.R.), Ltd., 302 U.S. 253 (1937), is a notable Supreme Court of the United States case. The issue was whether a local ("insular") law could be pre-empted by the Commerce clause of the United States Constitution. It was also notable as being one of the first cases that determined that Puerto Rico can be treated as if a state for some purposes under the law.[2] It has become a precedent for similar cases.[3]
Palko v. Connecticut
editPalko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937) involved a murder conviction. Palko had been charged with first-degree murder but was instead convicted of the lesser offense of second-degree murder and was given a sentence of life imprisonment. Prosecutors appealed per Connecticut law and won a new trial in which Palko was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Palko then appealed, arguing that the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy applied to state governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court had previously held, in the Slaughterhouse cases, that the protections of the Bill of Rights should not be applied to the states under the Privileges or Immunities clause, but Palko argued that since the infringed right fell under a due process protection, Connecticut still acted in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause protected only those rights that were "of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty" and that the court should therefore incorporate the Bill of Rights onto the states gradually, as justiciable violations arose, based on whether the infringed right met that test. Applying the subjective case-by-case approach (known as selective incorporation), the Court upheld Palko's conviction on the basis that the double jeopardy appeal was not "essential to a fundamental scheme of ordered liberty." In 1969 the Court overruled Palko by incorporating the protection against double jeopardy with its ruling in Benton v. Maryland.
Leitch Manufacturing Company v. Barber Company
editIn Leitch Manufacturing Company v. Barber Company, 302 U.S. 458 (1938), the Supreme Court extended the tie-in patent misuse doctrine to cases in which the patentee does not use an explicit tie-in license but instead relies on grants of implied licenses to only those who buy a necessary supply from it.
Federal court system
editUnder the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region.
The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari. On January 1, 1912, the effective date of the Judicial Code of 1911, the old Circuit Courts were abolished, with their remaining trial court jurisdiction transferred to the U.S. District Courts.
List of cases in volume 302 U.S.
edit- [a] Hughes took no part in the case
- [b] Black took no part in the case
- [c] Stone took no part in the case
- [d] Sutherland took no part in the case
- [e] Cardozo took no part in the case
- [f] Roberts took no part in the case
- [g] Brandeis took no part in the case
Notes and references
edit- ^ "Supreme Court Research Guide". Georgetown Law Library. Retrieved April 7, 2021.
- ^ Memorandum, Department of Justice, August 18, 1998, found at DOJ website Archived 2009-07-25 at the Wayback Machine, citing Puerto Rico v. Shell Co. (P. R.), Ltd., 302 U.S. at 258. Accessed July 27, 2009.
- ^ See, e.g., Topp-Cola Company v. Coca-Cola Company, 314 F.2d 124, 136 U.S.P.Q. 610 (2d Cir. 1963), found at Openjurist.com website. Accessed July 27, 2009.
External links
edit- [1] Case reports in volume 302 from Library of Congress
- [2] Case reports in volume 302 from Court Listener
- [3] Case reports in volume 302 from the Caselaw Access Project of Harvard Law School
- [4] Case reports in volume 302 from Google Scholar
- [5] Case reports in volume 302 from Justia
- [6] Case reports in volume 302 from Open Jurist
- Website of the United States Supreme Court
- United States Courts website about the Supreme Court
- National Archives, Records of the Supreme Court of the United States
- American Bar Association, How Does the Supreme Court Work?
- The Supreme Court Historical Society
