The case involved a federal constitutional challenge by a kosher supermarket owned and operated by Orthodox Jews, along with associated customers and a rabbi, against enforcement of Massachusetts' Lord's Day statute prohibiting most business activity on Sundays. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the law burdened their religious observance of the Jewish Sabbath (observed from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown) by effectively preventing operation on both weekend days. A three-judge district court reviewed the statute's colonial origins as a blue law, its numerous exceptions for certain activities and industries, and its application, to determine validity under the U.S. Constitution. The court analyzed whether the law's purpose, structure, and enforcement provisions could withstand scrutiny on grounds including religious liberty.
religious libertycivil rightscriminal lawbusiness & regulatory
The plaintiff sued the defendant steamship company for personal injuries she allegedly suffered due to negligence while a passenger on its vessel traveling from New York to Ireland. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the passenger ticket contained a contractual provision barring any suit for bodily injury unless commenced within one year, and the plaintiff had filed suit more than a year after the July 1953 injury. The court denied the motion, holding that the one-year limitation was not part of the contract of carriage because it was not incorporated by reference into the boxed portion of the ticket that contained the essential terms and the carrier’s signature. Under applicable American maritime law governing the tort that arose during performance of a U.S.-made contract, such a provision therefore did not bind the passenger, leaving any factual issue about whether the limitation was otherwise brought to her attention for resolution at trial.
This case involves a dispute between Rotary Lift Company and its former employee, A. Wiley Clayton, over an invention Clayton developed during his employment. The company sought specific performance of an employee agreement requiring Clayton to assign rights to his by-pass valve invention and sign a patent application, while Clayton counterclaimed for rescission of the agreement due to alleged duress. The court dismissed both claims, reasoning that the agreement, signed after Clayton conceived the invention, was ambiguous regarding coverage of prior inventions and should be construed against the company as the drafter, and that there was insufficient evidence of duress at the time of signing.
The case involved a habeas corpus petition by Anthony Pino challenging a deportation order under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which was based on his two convictions after entering the U.S. for crimes involving moral turpitude: carnal abuse in 1928 and larceny of golf balls in 1949. Pino argued that the larceny matter, which ended with the case being placed on file after probation and a suspended sentence in Massachusetts state court, did not qualify as a final conviction under the Act or state law, and that due process was violated in the proceedings. The court examined Massachusetts precedent defining conviction to include a finding of guilt followed by judgment, determined that Pino had indeed been convicted of both offenses, and held that larceny and carnal abuse qualify as crimes involving moral turpitude under established circuit precedent. It therefore concluded that the deportation order was proper and discharged the writ.
This case involved a dispute over whether the plaintiff corporation could enforce or claim commissions under a 1930 sales agency contract (later amended) that had been entered into by a predecessor Massachusetts corporation, Wetherell-Massachusetts, which had served as the exclusive selling agent for the defendant's steel products in New England until the contract's termination in 1952. The predecessor liquidated in 1950, distributing assets to its shareholders who then transferred them (including an attempted assignment of the contract) to the plaintiff, a Pennsylvania corporation, for tax reasons; the plaintiff then sought recovery on orders it claimed to have facilitated. The court entered judgment for the defendant. It reasoned that the plaintiff was a legally distinct entity from the predecessor, that the personal-services nature of the agency agreement made it non-assignable without the defendant's consent, that the original parties had treated the contract as terminable and non-transferable, and that no implied contract or unjust-enrichment claim arose from the plaintiff's post-liquidation efforts.
This case involved a claim by a U.S. Navy ensign under the Federal Tort Claims Act for $80 in damage to his personal automobile, which was parked in a designated area at a naval air station and pitted by stones and sand from an airplane's propeller wash. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the damage resulted from negligence by an unidentified government employee acting within the scope of employment when operating the plane. It held that the plaintiff's choice to use and park his own vehicle was not incident to his military service, distinguishing the facts from the Feres precedent that bars FTCA recovery for service-connected injuries to servicemen. The court concluded that the government had a duty of reasonable care when taxiing planes near the parking area and that the plaintiff bore no contributory negligence.