|
|
| |
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases —
for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case —
for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
|
| |
Federal Courts -
U. S. Supreme Court - April - December, 1937
|
| |
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., No. 419,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 12, 1937
View this case - free
|
Overview: Petitioner, the National Labor Relations Board, challenged the lower court's denial of its petition to enforce an order requiring respondent employer, which was engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel, to cease and desist from unfair labor practices, to offer reinstatement to 10 employees at one of its plants who were discharged for union activity, to make good their losses in pay, and to post notices. The court reversed, ruling that the National Labor Relations Act was a proper exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, that employees had a right to self-organization, and that discrimination and coercion to prevent exercise of this right was a proper subject for condemnation by legislative authority. The court further ruled that the Act applied to respondent's employees who were engaged exclusively in production because intrastate activities that were closely connected to interstate commerce were subject to regulation by Congress. The court also ruled that the Act did not violate the Fifth Amendment or the Seventh Amendment.
|
|
| |
Palko v. Connecticut, No. 135,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, December 6, 1937, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant appealed a judgment that affirmed the death sentence imposed on the ground that Conn. Gen. Stat. ? 6494, which allowed the State to appeal in a criminal case, violated U.S. Const. amend. XIV because it allowed defendant to be tried twice and thus subjected him to double jeopardy in violation of U.S. Const. amend. V. The United States Supreme Court affirmed, holding that not all U.S. Const. amend. V rights were applicable to the states through U.S. Const. amend. XIV, and the state could choose not to adopt a right if it was not of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty, and its abolishment would not violate a principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of the American people as to be ranked as fundamental. The Court ruled that the state statute did not deny petitioner due process of law because allowing a retrial did not violate fundamental principles of liberty and justice where it was only done to ensure a trial free from substantial legal error.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback