Volume 365 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 365 of the United States Reports:

Held: in Grosjean, that the imposition of the tax would curtail the amount of revenue realized from advertising and therefore operate as a restraint on publication. The license tax in Grosjean is analogous to the license fee in the case at bar, a fee to which petitioner raises no objection.

Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), was a United States Supreme Court case that considered the application of federal civil rights law to constitutional violations by city employees. The case was significant because it held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statutory provision from 1871, could be used to sue state officers who violated a plaintiff's constitutional rights. § 1983 had previously been a relatively obscure and little-used statute, but since Monroe it has become a central part of United States civil rights law.

Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 320 (1961), the Tampa Electric case, was a 1961 decision of the Supreme Court that, together with United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, clarified the legal test for determining whether requirements contracts "may substantially lessen competition" or "tend to create a monopoly" for purposes of section 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act.

Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336 (1961), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court redefined the U.S. patent law doctrine of repair and reconstruction. The decision is sometimes referred to as Aro I because several years later the Supreme Court readdressed the same issues in a second case in 1964 involving the same parties—Aro II.

Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U.S. 399 (1961), was a court case during the McCarthy Era in which the petitioner, Frank Wilkinson, an administrator with the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, challenged his conviction under 2 U.S.C. § 192, which makes it a misdemeanor to refuse to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry for any person summoned as a witness by Congress. The petitioner's conviction was sustained in a 5–4 ruling, upholding a prior ruling in Barenblatt v. United States. The petitioner was indeed summoned to testify before a Subcommittee of the House of Representatives' Un-American Activities Committee, which was investigating alleged Communist infiltration into basic industries and Communist Party propaganda activities.

Braden v. United States, 365 U.S. 431 (1961), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the conviction of the petitioner, Carl Braden, based on his refusal to answer questions posed to him by the House Un-American Activities Committee, did not violate his First Amendment rights and was constitutional.

Held: inter alia, (1) that because savings and loan associations are 'different in character, purpose and organization from national banks,' operate 'in a narrow, restricted field,' and are not permitted to receive deposits, they could not, as a matter of law, come 'into competition with the business of national banks' within the meaning of § 5219, (2) that inasmuch as Michigan lawfully might entirely exempt some entities…

Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that a federal officer may not, without warrant, physically place themselves into the space of a person's office or home to secretly observe or listen and relate at the man's subsequent criminal trial what was seen or heard.

Held: unless 'in fact' his confession was coerced, a 'fact' to be ascertained from the state record on direct review here, or de novo by a federal district judge in habeas corpus proceedings.

Held: extends to the entire bed of a stream, which includes the lands below ordinary high water mark. The exercise of the power within these limits is not an invasion of any private property right in such lands for which the United States must make compensation.

Held: it similarly has power so to order in this case.

Held: Abe Murdock dissenting, that the hiring-hall agreement, despite the inclusion of a nondiscrimination clause, was illegal per se: 9 The Board went on to say that a hiring-hall arrangement to be lawful must contain protective provisions.

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961), was a United States Supreme Court case that decided that the Equal Protection Clause applies to private business that operates in a relationship to a government that is close to the point that it becomes a "state actor."

Held: 9 'The contract sued on is not a maritime contract, since it was merely a promise to pay money, on land, if the former seaman should suffer injury at the hands of the United States Public Health Service personnel, on land, in the course of medical treatment. * * * For all that appears in the complaint, it may well be that the contract sued on was allegedly made after the maritime contract of employment of the…

Held: save as to Wherry Act leaseholds, that all leaseholds, including leaseholds on the State's own tax-exempt lands are to be valued for tax purposes on the basis of their fair market value, considering their burdens as well as their benefits.