The case involved a copyright infringement claim by the author of a play against Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. over a motion picture, both featuring a child actress in a story set in China with missionaries and bandits. The court ruled in favor of the defendant. Common plot elements such as an orphaned child, missionaries, and bandit raids were not protectable under copyright law. Although the defendant had legal access to the play, the actual scriptwriters had not seen it, and the film differed substantially in its specific features and treatment from the play, resulting in no substantial similarity.
This case involved a dispute between the City of Los Angeles and Borax Consolidated over title to land on Mormon Island in San Pedro Harbor, specifically the location of the boundary line determined by the mean high tide. The court examined historical tidal data, bench marks, and the impact of seiche (oscillating water movements) on measurements, concluding that the proper mean high water elevation was 4.7 feet above the mean lower low water datum rather than 5.1 feet. Ultimately, the court awarded judgment to the defendant, holding that the city was estopped from asserting a different boundary due to its long acquiescence, affirmative acts, and cooperation with the defendant's use of the land, and that an implied agreed boundary existed between the parties.
In Re Diller concerns a debtor who filed a petition under section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended, asserting farmer status to retain possession of his farm and city residence properties subject to existing trust deeds held by creditors Michael Shoemaker and John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company. The creditors sought dismissal of the proceedings or permission to foreclose on the overdue mortgages, and evidence showed the debtor resided in Los Angeles rather than on the farm while having defaulted on payments, taxes, and insurance. The court dismissed the bankruptcy case, ruling that section 75(s) is unconstitutional under the bankruptcy clause because it extends the redemption period, grants the debtor possession and rents for three years upon payment of reasonable rental, and allows redemption at appraised value, thereby depriving secured creditors of substantive rights to control the property and its proceeds during default without compensation, consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford.
This case involves milk producers and distributors operating entirely within California who sought a preliminary injunction to block federal officials from enforcing a license issued under the Agricultural Adjustment Act against them for alleged violations. The plaintiffs contended that their business was purely intrastate commerce outside Congress's regulatory authority and that the officials lacked power to impose penalties or discipline. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the Secretary of Agriculture was an indispensable party. The court denied the motion and continued the injunction, reasoning that the officials could be sued directly as they purported to act without lawful authority over intrastate activities, which could not be transformed into interstate commerce by administrative declaration, and cited precedents allowing suits against unauthorized officials without joining superiors.
The case involved a beneficiary under an accident insurance policy who sued the insurer after an autopsy on her deceased husband, during which organs were removed and retained by the company's physicians without returning them, despite her request for information and implied demand for their return. The plaintiff sought damages for mental anguish and suffering caused by the retention. A jury awarded her $1,500, and the court denied the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court reasoned that the policy permitted only an autopsy, not permanent retention of organs, that any consent was limited to a reasonable time, and that damages for mental suffering were recoverable under California law for the wrongful handling of a dead body, as supported by legal precedents on such actions.
The case involved a Greek national subject to a deportation warrant issued by the Department of Labor who had been granted time for voluntary departure at his own expense but failed to depart after an extension and a state arrest on criminal syndicalism charges. He sought habeas relief claiming that deportation to Greece would constitute cruel and unusual punishment because of anticipated harm there, and alternatively demanded government-funded voluntary departure. The court held that deportation is not punishment but an exercise of sovereign authority over aliens and that the privilege of voluntary departure is purely discretionary with the Secretary of Labor, not a right enforceable in court. It further ruled that judicial interference with executive discretion in immigration matters is unavailable absent a clear showing of abuse. The writ was therefore discharged and the petitioner remanded to immigration custody.