Volume 372 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 372 of the United States Reports:

from pages 10-11 intentionally omitted] Dominick L. Manoli, Washington, D.C., for petitioners in Nos. 91 and 107. Herman E. Cooper, New York City, for petitioner in No. 93, Archibald Cox, Sol. Gen., for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. Orison S. Marden, New York City, for respondent in Nos. 91 and 93.

United States v. Gilmore, 372 U.S. 39 (1963), was a federal income tax case before the United States Supreme Court.

Held: were designed to satisfy respondent’s marital obligations to his wife and protect the interests of the children, yet at the same time preserve respondent’s control over the publishing company, to which he had devoted many years of effort. The situation, in short, is comparable to that in United States v. Gilmore, supra. The principles held governing in that case are equally applicable here.

Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that the actions of the Rhode Island Commission to Encourage Morality in Youth, which involved pressuring distributors to stop selling certain publications, violated the First Amendment by creating an unconstitutional system of informal censorship. The Court ruled that the commission's practice of issuing notices and lists of objectionable publications to book distributors, and requesting their cooperation in preventing the sale of such publications, was unconstitutional. Justice William J. Brennan Jr.

Schlude v. Commissioner, 372 U.S. 128 (1963), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that, under the accrual method, taxpayers must include as income in a particular year advance payments by way of cash, negotiable notes, and contract installments falling due but remaining unpaid during that year. In doing so, the Court tossed aside the matching principle in favor of the earlier-of test.

Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court amended United States nationality law with respect to draft evasion.

Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963), is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbade state government officials to force a crowd to disperse when they are otherwise legally marching in front of a state house.

Held: 59 'It texes credulity to believe that the several distributors would, in the circumstances, have accepted and put into operation with substantial unanimity such * * * methods without some understanding that all were to join, and we reject as beyond the range of probability that it was the result of mere chance.' 60 Likewise, the other restrictions in the contracts run counter to the Sherman Act.

Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963), was a United States Supreme Court case wherein the Court expanded the circumstances in which federal courts should hold evidentiary hearings when presented with petitions for habeas corpus by state prisoners following denial of postconviction relief in state court. The Court held that federal district courts must hold evidentiary hearings if the state court did not resolve all material factual disputes in a full and fair hearing supported by the record. The case centered around Charles Townsend, who was convicted of a series of murders and robberies and sentenced to death. The issue heard in the Supreme Court centered around a confession Townsend had given while under the influence of an alleged "truth serum".

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires U.S. states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own. The case extended the right to counsel, which had been found under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to impose requirements on the federal government, by imposing those requirements upon the states as well.

Two defendants were tried and convicted in a California state court on felony charges including robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault with intent to commit murder.

Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963), was a Supreme Court of the United States case dealing with equal representation in regard to the American election system and formulated the famous "one person, one vote" standard applied in this case for "counting votes in a Democratic primary election for the nomination of a United States Senator and statewide officers — which was practically equivalent to election."

Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963), was a 1963 United States Supreme Court case concerning habeas corpus. In a majority opinion authored by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., the Court held that state prisoners were entitled to access to habeas relief in federal court, even if they did not pursue a remedy in state court that was not available to them at the time. Furthermore, the majority in Fay set out the "deliberate bypass" standard, whereby federal habeas courts could not deny petitions brought by state prisoners unless that prisoner had "deliberately bypassed the orderly procedure of state courts" for the adjudication of constitutional claims.

Held: “must be afforded as adequate appellate review as defendants who have money enough to buy transcripts.” Id., at 19 .

Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, 372 U.S. 539 (1963), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that a legislative committee cannot compel a subpoenaed witness to give up the membership lists of his organization.

Held: by the exclusive liability provision of the federal compensation statute. 369 U.S. 810, 82 S.Ct. 688, 7 L.Ed.2d 611.

from pages 633-634 intentionally omitted] Melvin Lloyd Robbins, New York City, for petitioners. Alex L. Rosen and Harold Harper, New York City, for respondents.

Held: however, that § 15(7) vested exclusive power in the Commission to suspend a change of rate for a limited time and thereby precluded District Court jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief extending the statutory period. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, stating, 'Congress, in its wisdom, has fixed seven months as the maximum period of suspension.

intentionally omitted] T. Raber Taylor and Floyd B. Engeman, Denver, Colo., for petitioners. Howard H. Jewel, Asst. Atty. Gen., for State of California, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. Shirley A. Siegel, New York City, for State of New York, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.

Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726 (1963), was a case before the United States Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of prohibiting debt adjustment.

from pages 744-745 intentionally omitted] Robert W. Ginnane, Warren Price, Jr., and Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., for appellants.