← TrackerJohn Christopher Mahoney

John Christopher Mahoney

Born 1882 · Cork

📰 News & journal →

Party: Democratic →A.B., Brown UniversityLL.B., Harvard University

Affiliations

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit — appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt

District Court, D. Rhode Island — appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt

Decision record

Newest first · every case links to the full record

Aldred Inv. Trust v. Securities & Exchange Commission
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1945-09-17 · cited 44×
The Securities and Exchange Commission sued the officers and trustees of Aldred Investment Trust under Section 36 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, alleging gross abuse of trust in their management of the registered investment company. The District Court found that all but one of the defendants had engaged in such conduct, enjoined them from continuing to serve in their roles, and appointed receivers with authority to reorganize or liquidate the trust. The defendants appealed the decree. The court applied the statutory standard authorizing injunctions where gross misconduct or gross abuse of trust is established, based on evidence of the trust's declining asset values, payment of interest from principal, and transactions involving acquisition of control in another entity. The opinion details the trust's structure, investment policies, and financial history leading to the SEC's action.
business & regulatory
Crespo v. United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1945-08-29 · cited 26×
The case involved the conviction of Crespo under the White Slave Traffic Act for transporting five women within Puerto Rico for prostitution on a single occasion. The district court acquitted him of conspiracy but convicted on five substantive counts and imposed consecutive sentences. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, holding that the federal statute applies to such intra-territory transport in Puerto Rico based on its explicit language covering territories, legislative history showing congressional intent, and precedents confirming Congress's authority over territories. The court further reasoned that each woman's transport constituted a separate offense under the Act's prohibition on transporting "any woman or girl," as the crime depends on the purpose and act for each individual rather than the means of conveyance.
criminal lawfederal power
Bowie v. Gonzalez
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1941-01-10 · cited 112×
The case concerned whether employees of Eastern Sugar Associates working in its sugar mills and on its railroad in Puerto Rico were covered by the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The district court entered a declaratory judgment in favor of the employees, finding the Act applicable. The court reasoned that the milling and transportation operations did not fall within the agricultural exemption of Section 3(f) because they involved processing of cane into raw sugar rather than farming activities, nor did they qualify for the area-of-production exemption under Section 13(a)(10), and it upheld jurisdiction under the commerce power and Declaratory Judgment Act.
labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory
Keefe v. Broderick
District Court, D. Rhode Island · 1939-01-16 · cited 4×
The case involved three daughters of John W. Keefe suing to recover estate taxes paid on the proceeds of two life insurance policies on their father's life. The policies named each daughter as a vested irrevocable beneficiary whose consent was required for any change, while the decedent retained the ability to alter or cancel the interests of contingent beneficiaries. The court held that the policy proceeds were not includible in the decedent's gross estate under the Revenue Act of 1926. The reasoning was that section 302(g) governs life insurance and requires inclusion only for amounts receivable by the executor or exceeding $40,000 paid to other beneficiaries; section 302(d) on transfers with retained powers to alter or revoke does not apply because no property interest passed from the decedent at death, as the beneficiaries' rights vested upon issuance of the policies.
taxes
Buck v. Hillsgrove Country Club, Inc.
District Court, D. Rhode Island · 1937-01-11 · cited 6×
The case involved copyright owners suing a country club for unauthorized public performances of musical compositions for profit. The club's answer alleged that the owners held an unlawful monopoly over popular music, arbitrarily fixed licensing rates, and charged the defendant higher fees than its competitors, invoking an unclean hands defense. The court granted the owners' motion to strike those paragraphs from the answer. It reasoned that the Constitution and Copyright Act grant copyright holders exclusive rights to exclude others, set prices, and license selectively without any duty to deal equally or fairly, and no special equities justified the defense here.
business & regulatoryproperty