top of page
Search

Today in Supreme Court History: March 15

  • 12 minutes ago
  • 3 min read

Bakery Sales Drivers Local Union No. 33 v. Wagshal, 333 U.S. 437 (decided March 15, 1948): A deli changed bakeries because its drivers would deliver only at noon.  (Understandable.  I grew up in a deli, and later delivered to delis, and this is a b-a-d time for deliveries, with the lunch crowd waiting for their sandwiches.  Bakery goods, such as rolls and bagels, are customarily delivered in early morning, for obvious reasons.)  The bakery drivers’ union stopped all deliveries and picketed; deli sued under Norris-LaGuardia Act and got injunction against any interfering with the deli’s business.  Court holds that this was not a “labor dispute” such as allows review of the injunction under the Act.  (Faced with the injunction, union lifted boycott and reason prevailed.)


The Antelope, 25 U.S. 546 (decided March 15, 1827): Spaniards entitled to reclaim Africans who already belonged to them despite seizure of vessel under Slave Trade Act


Radio and Television Broadcast Technicians Local 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255 (decided March 15, 1965): NLRB preempts state court intervention into picket of radio station having less than statutory minimum $100,000 in gross receipts, where it was part of larger radio network


Alabama v. Texas, 347 U.S. 272 (decided March 15, 1954): Congress has plenary power to give land to some states and not others (such as under Submerged Lands Act of 1953) and states cannot question it


United States v. Evans, 333 U.S. 483 (decided March 15, 1948): dismissing indictment for harboring illegal aliens because the statute is so unclear as to what penalty applies (“The choice is not simply between no penalty, at the one extreme, and, at the other, fine plus imprisonment up to the specified maxima for each alien concealed or harbored.  The problem is rather one of multiple choice, presenting at least three, and perhaps four, possible yet inconsistent answers on the statute’s wording.”)


Woods v. Stone, 333 U.S. 472 (decided March 15, 1943): one-year statute of limitations for government to recoup excess rent (in violation of wartime price controls), where due to owner’s failure to register property excess rent escaped the attention of authorities, began to run from the date of breach of Area Rent Director’s refund order, not from the date when excess rents were collected


Walters v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 347 U.S. 231 (decided March 15, 1954): not denial of Equal Protection to treat self-employment income differently from wage income for tax purposes


Federal Power Commission v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 347 U.S. 239 (decided March 15, 1954): hydroelectric provider could set off rent paid to owners of upstream water rights from surplus earnings for purposes of amortization reserve


Phelps v. Oaks, 117 U.S. 236 (decided March 15, 1886): in determining who is real party in interest for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction federal courts are not bound by state law on that question


Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (March 15, 2024): whether City Manager violated First Amendment by blocking commenter on his private Facebook account is question of fact for trial court (he often discussed official business on it and there was no “views expressed here are my own” disclaimer); whether he was “state actor” bound by Constitution depends not on labeling but on substance

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Today in Supreme Court History: March 14

Sicurella v. United States , 348 U.S. 385 (decided March 14, 1955): Jehovah’s Witness can be awarded conscientious objector status even though willing to fight if Jesus commands him in “theological wa

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: March 13

Klopfer v. North Carolina , 386 U.S. 213 (decided March 13, 1967): prosecutor can’t say “nolle prosequi” (decide not to go forward) and yet keep the defendant on a long leash; North Carolina nolle pro

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: March 12

Hale v. Henkel , 201 U.S. 43 (decided March 12, 1906): rejecting witness’s claim of Fifth Amendment privilege in federal grand jury proceeding because enjoyed federal immunity even though state prosec

 
 
 

Comments


Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page