This case concerns the long-running reorganization of the Boston & Providence Railroad Corporation under section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, begun in 1938 after default on its debenture bonds and involving multiple plans reviewed by the Interstate Commerce Commission. After a 1960 remand for further consideration of post-approval developments, the Commission approved a 1963 plan (with amendments) under which substantially all of the debtor's assets would transfer to the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, the debtor would liquidate, public stockholders would receive $110 per share, debentures would be replaced by new bonds issued by New Haven, and specified funds would cover taxes, debts, and reorganization expenses. The district court approved the plan, concluding that it is fair and equitable, affords due recognition to the rights of bondholders and stockholders, satisfies the requirements of section 77, and allocates a reasonable sum for fees and expenses after years of litigation and negotiation.
This case involved a subrogated insurance claim in admiralty alleging negligence by the operator of a boat that collided with a dock on Lake Winnipesaukee, New Hampshire, causing $1000 in damage. The respondent moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, contending that the lake is an inland body of water not navigable in interstate or foreign commerce. The court granted the motion after finding that the lake lies entirely within New Hampshire, is landlocked, and does not meet the test for admiralty jurisdiction established in The Daniel Ball, as no evidence showed a continuous highway for interstate water commerce.
This case was a class action brought by African American children residing in Springfield, Massachusetts, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunction against the school committee for assigning students to racially imbalanced schools in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found no deliberate intent by school officials to segregate students by race, but determined that the neighborhood-based attendance policy produced unconstitutional segregation, as evidenced by several schools with majority non-white enrollment exceeding 50 percent while others remained nearly all white. It reasoned that adherence to the neighborhood plan, though not intentionally discriminatory, resulted in segregation that must be remedied under Brown v. Board of Education and related precedents requiring equal protection. The court ordered the defendants to submit a plan by April 30, 1965, to eliminate racial concentration in elementary and junior high schools to the fullest extent possible within effective educational procedures, while retaining jurisdiction over the matter.
The plaintiff sued Dell Publishing Co. for libel over a story published in its magazine "Front Page Detective," after the case was removed from state to federal court. The defendant moved to quash service of process and dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. The court allowed the motion to quash, finding that service on an employee of a subsidiary company was invalid because that individual was not an agent of the defendant. The court also granted dismissal, ruling that the New York-based defendant was not "doing business" in Massachusetts within the meaning of state law, as it maintained no assets, personnel, or operations there and relied on a subsidiary for distribution, with mere sales of magazines insufficient to establish jurisdiction under cited precedents.
The case involved a widow and her husband's estate seeking recovery of federal income taxes paid on payments received from the deceased executive's former employer, claiming the amounts were excludable from income as gifts under Section 102 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The court held that the payments were not gifts and were properly included in taxable income. The core reasoning, following Commissioner v. Duberstein, was that the company's voluntary payments were motivated at least in part by business considerations, including recognition of the executive's contributions and the start of a plan for widows of officials, rather than solely detached and disinterested generosity.
The plaintiff Union sued under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act to compel the defendant bus company to arbitrate grievances concerning the suspension of one driver and the discharge of 190 others following a work stoppage over rules on carrying standees. The company moved to dismiss, arguing that the National Labor Relations Board had exclusive jurisdiction, that the strike waived any arbitration rights and terminated the contract, and that the grievances were untimely or insufficiently specific. The court granted the Union's motion for summary judgment and denied the company's motion. It held that the broad arbitration clause covering all grievances over interpretation and application of the agreement, including discharges, applied to these disputes, that doubts must be resolved in favor of arbitrability, that NLRB jurisdiction is not exclusive, and that any procedural objections or questions about breach should be decided by the arbitrator rather than the court.
