Volume 360 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 360 of the United States Reports:

Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 25 (1959), was a case in which the Supreme Court created a new doctrine of abstention.

Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, 360 U.S. 45 (1959), was a case challenging the constitutionality of the rule of Northampton County, North Carolina requiring potential voters to pass a literacy test to vote, appealed from the Supreme Court of that state.

Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the actions of the House Un-American Activities Committee did not violate the First Amendment and, thus, the Court upheld Lloyd Barenblatt's conviction for contempt of Congress. The Court held that the congressional committee had authority to compel a college professor to answer questions about his Communist Party membership.

Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U.S. 167 (1959), is a 6-to-3 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia should have abstained from deciding the constitutionality of three barratry, champerty, and maintenance laws in the state of Virginia until state courts had had a reasonable chance to construe them.

from pages 185-186 intentionally omitted] Mr. Philip Baskin, Pittsburgh, Pa., for petitioner. Mr. Harold R. Schmidt, Pittsburgh, Pa., for respondents.

from 203-204 intentionally omitted] Mr. Thomas J. McDermott, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Mr. Haywood H. Hillyer, for respondents.

Held: obliged to produce the items included in the Circuit Court's order.

Held: is that judgment follow, and not precede them. Public respect for the judiciary might well suffer if any basis were given for an assumption, however wrong in fact, that this were not so.

Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the knowing use of false testimony by a prosecutor in a criminal case violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if the testimony affects only the credibility of the witness and does not directly relate to the innocence or guilt of the defendant.

Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315 (1959), represented the Supreme Court's movement away from the amorphous voluntariness standard for determining whether police violated due process standards when eliciting confessions and towards the modern rule in Miranda v. Arizona. In Spano, the Court focused less on factors such as meals provided to the accused and more on whether the accused had access to legal counsel.

Held: had ample means, under the state statute, to enjoin the illegal methods of its competitors.

Held: resulted in the Commission's losing jurisdiction. We do not believe that this follows. No sales, intrastate or interstate, of gas had ever been made from the leases involved here. The contracts under which the petitioners proposed to sell the gas in the interstate market were all conditioned on the issuance of certificates of public convenience and necessity.

from pages 474-475 intentionally omitted] Mr. Carl W. Berueffy, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner. Mr. George Cochran Doub, Washington, D.C., for the respondents. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. 1 This case involves the validity of the Government's revocation of security clearance granted to petitioner, an aeronautical engineer employed by a private manufacturer which produced goods for the armed services.

Held: over the vigorous protest of the railroad workers, that this jurisdiction is not only compulsory, but that a union can be enjoined from striking while the Board's jurisdiction is being exercised. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River & Indiana R. Co., 353 U.S. 30 , 77 S.Ct. 635, 1 L.Ed.2d 622. 6 48 Stat. 1191, 45 U.S.C. § 153, First (m), 45 U.S.C.A. § 153, subd. 1(m). 7 See, e.g., note 8, infra.

Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 (1959), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning legal immunity for officers of the executive branch. The Court held that when a federal government official issues a press release or other public statement about an aspect of their official duties, they are absolutely immune from libel suits—at least so long as the libel suit was not authorized by Congress, per Justice Hugo Black, whose concurring opinion provided the decisive fifth vote for immunity. The case originated when John J. Madigan and Linda Matteo, two former employees of the Office of Rent Stabilization, sued acting director William G. Barr over statements he made about them in a press release.

Held: that the asserted violation by the Company of Article 32, even if true, would not serve to justify an employee's violation of direct operating instructions and his abandonment of his post.' 255 F.2d at pages 667—668.