Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T03:11:14.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constitutional Law in 1959–1960

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

David Fellman
David Fellman*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The personnel of the Supreme Court remained unchanged during the 1959 Term. From the point of view of the decisions rendered in the public law field, this was an undistinguished Term. Few of the constitutional cases are likely to hold an important place among the precedents, and a considerable number of well-argued decisions turned entirely upon private law questions. But there was no dearth of writing, during the period under review, about the Court as an institution and about the Justices who sit there.

Note may be made at this point of the latest chapter in the long dispute over the so-called tidelands. In 1947 the Supreme Court had ruled that, as against the claims of California, the United States possessed paramount rights in lands underlying the Pacific Ocean seaward from the low-water mark. Similar rulings were made in 1950 as regards the claims of Louisiana and Texas in the Gulf of Mexico. But with the enactment in 1953 of the Submerged Lands Act, the United States relinquished to the coastal states all of its rights in all lands beneath navigable waters within the three-mile limit, and in excess of that limit within state boundaries as they existed at the time a state became a member of the Union, or as theretofore approved by Congress. The limit of the grant was three leagues (about ten and one-half miles) in the Gulf of Mexico and three geographical miles in the Atlantic and Pacific. The actual extent of the claims of the coastal states involved in the question was therefore left to be settled by litigation.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , March 1961 , pp. 112 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On the Court as an institution see: Schmidhauser, John R., The Supreme Court: Its Politics, Personalities and Procedures (New York, 1960)Google Scholar; Mendelson, Wallace, Capitalism, Democracy, and the Supreme Court (New York, 1960)Google Scholar; McCloskey, Robert G., The American Supreme Court (Chicago, 1960)Google Scholar; Tompkins, Dorothy C., The Supreme Court of the United States: A Bibliography (Berkeley, 1959)Google Scholar; Douglas, William O., “The Supreme Court and Its Case Load,” Cornell Law Quarterly, Vol. 45, pp. 401–414 (Spring, 1960)Google Scholar; Abraham, Henry J. and Goldberg, Edward M., “A Note on the Appointment of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States,” American Bar Association Journal, Vol. 46, pp. 147–150, 219–222 (02, 1960)Google Scholar. On the Justices see: Thomas, Helen Shirley, Felix Frankfurter: Scholar on the Bench (Baltimore, 1960)Google Scholar; Phillips, Harlan B., ed., Felix Frankfurter Reminisces (New York, 1960)Google Scholar; Friendly, Henry J., “Mr. Justice Brandeis: The Quest for Reason,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 108, pp. 985–999 (05, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mendelson, Wallace, “Mr. Justice Black and the Rule of Law,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 4, pp. 250–266 (08, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ulmer, S. Sidney, “An Empirical Analysis of Selected Aspects of Lawmaking of the United States Supreme Court,” Journal of Public Law, Vol. 8, pp. 414–436 (Fall, 1959)Google Scholar; Ulmer, , “Polar Classification of Supreme Court Justices,” South Carolina Law Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 407–417 (Spring, 1960)Google Scholar. For a distinguished contribution to the literature on judicial review see Black, Charles L. Jr., The People and the Court: Judicial Review in a Democracy (New York, 1960)Google Scholar. On current controversy regarding the Court see: McKay, Robert B., “The Supreme Court and its Lawyer Critics,” Fordham Law Review, Vol. 28, pp. 615–636 (Winter, 1959–1960)Google Scholar; Kurland, Philip B., “The Supreme Court and its Judicial Critics,” Utah Law Review, Vol. 6, pp. 457–466 (Fall, 1959)Google Scholar; Frank, John P., “The Historic Role of the Supreme Court,” Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 48, pp. 26–47 (Fall, 1959)Google Scholar; Chase, Harold W., “The Warren Court and Congress,” Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 44, pp. 595–637 (03, 1960)Google Scholar; Kadish, Sanford H., “A Note on Judicial Activism,” Utah Law Review, Vol. 6, pp. 467–471 (Fall, 1959)Google Scholar. See also: Elliott, Shelden D., Improving Our Courts (New York, 1959)Google Scholar; Curtis, Charles P., Law as Large as Life (New York, 1959)Google Scholar; Dietze, Gottfried, The Federalist: A Classic on Federalism and Free Government (Baltimore, 1960)Google Scholar; Arnold, Thurman, “Professor Hart's Theology,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 73, pp. 1298–1317 (05, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grant, J. A. C., “Our Common Law Constitution,” Boston University Law Review, Vol. 40, pp. 1–56 (Winter, 1960)Google Scholar; Newland, Chester A., “The Supreme Court and Legal Writing: Learned Journals as Vehicles of an Anti-Trust Lobby?” Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 48, pp. 105–143 (Fall, 1959)Google Scholar; Boudin, Leonard B., “Involuntary Loss of American Nationality,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 73, pp. 1510–1531 (06, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Miller, Arthur S. and Howell, Ronald F., “The Myth of Neutrality in Constitutional Adjudication,” University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 27, pp. 661–695 (Summer, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19 (1947).

3 United States v. Louisiana, 339 U. S. 699 (1950); United States v. Texas, 339 U. S. 707 (1950).

4 This statute was held constitutional in Alabama v. Texas, 347 U. S. 272 (1954).

5 United States v. States of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, 363 U. S. 1 (1960).

6 Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603 (1960). See Note, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 73, pp. 590–593 (01, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hesse, Siegfried, “The Constitutional Status of the Lawfully Admitted Permanent Resident Alien: The Inherent Limits of the Power to Expel,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 69, pp. 262–297 (December, 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frye, Robert J., “Deportation of Aliens: An Exercise in Judicial Restraint,” Alabama Law Review, Vol. 12, pp. 324–340 (Spring, 1960)Google Scholar.

7 The Court thought this was the teaching of such cases as Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277 (1867) and Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333 (1867).

8 Gonzales v. United States, 364 U. S. 59 (1960).

9 United States v. Alabama, 362 U. S. 602 (1960). See Heyman, Ira M., “Federal Remedies for Votelesa Negroes,” California Law Review, Vol. 48, pp. 190–215 (05, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Note, “The Civil Rights Act of 1960,” Virginia Law Review, Vol. 46, pp. 945–975 (06, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 92 U. S. 214 (1876).

11 United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17 (1960).

12 The same result was reached in a companion case, United States v. Thomas, 362 U. S. 58 (1960), which came up from the federal district court for the eastern district of Louisiana, and which was disposed of in a brief per curiam memorandum opinion.

13 363 U. S. 420 (1960). See Holden, James P., “The Right to Confrontation,” Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 48, pp. 576–593 (Spring, 1960)Google Scholar; Pollitt, Daniel H., “The Right of Confrontation,” Journal of Public Law, Vol. 8, pp. 381–413 (Fall, 1959)Google Scholar.

14 Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1 (1957). See this Review, Vol. 52, pp. 159–161 (March, 1958).

15 Kinsella v. United States ex rel. Singleton, 361 U. S. 234 (1960). See Everett, Robinson O., “Military Jurisdiction over Civilians,” Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1960, pp. 366–415 (Summer, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Duke, Robert D. and Vogel, Howard S., “The Constitution and the Standing Army: Another Problem of Court-Martial Jurisdiction,” Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 13, pp. 435–460 (03, 1960)Google Scholar.

16 Grisham v. Hagan, 361 U. S. 278 (1960).

17 McElroy v. United States ex rel. Guagliardo, 361 U. S. 281 (1960).

18 361 U. S. 98 (1959).

19 Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 (1925).

20 361 U. S. 212 (1960).

21 Levine v. United States, 362 U. S. 610 (1960). That the court could act summarily in this sort of case was decided in Brown v. United States, 359 U. S. 41 (1959). See Note, “Origins of the Public Trial,” Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 35, pp. 251–258 (Winter, 1960)Google Scholar.

22 Grunewald v. United States, 353 U. S. 391 (1957).

23 Forman v. United States, 361 U. S. 416 (1960).

24 361 U. S. 529 (1960).

25 Parker v. Ellis, 362 U. S. 574 (1960).

26 Lustig v. United States, 338 U. S. 74 (1949).

27 Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206 (1960) (conviction for intercepting and divulging telephone communications); Rios v. United States, 364 U. S. 253 (1960) (conviction on a narcotics charge). See Symposium, “The Wiretapping-Eavesdropping Problems: Reflections on The Eavesdroppers ,” Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 44, pp. 813–940 (04, 1960)Google Scholar; Maguire, John M., Evidence of Guilt (Boston, 1960)Google Scholar.

28 338 U. S. 25 (1949).

29 Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914).

30 362 U. S. 217 (1960).

31 362 U. S. 257 (1960).

32 364 U. S. 51 (1960).

33 Armstrong v. United States, 364 U. S. 40 (1960). See Nelson, Lester, “Sovereign Immunity and Federal Liens,” Brooklyn Law Review, Vol. 26, pp. 18–40 (December, 1959)Google Scholar.

34 Kimm v. Rosenberg, 363 U. S. 405 (1960). See Davis, Kenneth Culp, Administrative Law and Government (St. Paul, 1960)Google Scholar; Tanenhaus, Joseph, “Supreme Court Attitudes toward Federal Administrative Agencies,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 22, pp. 502–524 (08, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Scales v. United States, 361 U. S. 952 (1960)

36 363 U. S. 194 (1960).

37 United States v. Grand River Dam Authority, 363 U. S. 229 (1960).

38 Mitchell v. Zachry Co., 362 U. S. 310 (1960).

39 Clay v. Sun Insurance Office, 363 U. S. 207 (1960).

40 United Steelworkers v. United States, 361 U. S. 39 (1959).

41 158 U. S. 564 (1895).

42 Hess v. United States, 361 U. S. 314 (1960).

43 The Tungus v. Skovgaard, 358 U. S. 588 (1959). See this Review, Vol. 54, p. 197 (March, 1960).

44 See also Goett v. Union Carbide Corp., 361 U. S. 340 (1960), where the Court remanded a case involving a maritime tort decided under the West Virginia wrongful death act, again stressing that it is a question of state law as to what is the proper substantive law to be applied to maritime torts within the territorial jurisdiction of the states in wrongful death cases.

45 Ward v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 362 U. S. 396 (1960). See DeParcq, William H., “The Supreme Court and the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 1958–1959 Term,” Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 44, pp. 707–717 (03, 1960)Google Scholar.

46 Conner v. Butler, 361 U. S. 29 (1959).

47 Davis v. Virginian R. Co., 361 U. S. 354 (1960).

48 Inman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 361 U. S. 138 (1959).

49 Harris v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 361 U. S. 15 (1959).

50 Sentilles v. Inter-Caribbean Shipping Corp., 361 U. S. 107 (1959). Justice Frankfurter took the position that certiorari should not be granted to review facts and weigh evidence, and that the writ should be dismissed as having been granted improvidently.

51 See generally: Gellhorn, Walter, American Rights (New York, 1960)Google Scholar; Bontecou, Eleanor, ed., Freedom in the Balance: Opinions of Judge Henry W. Edgerton relating to Civil Liberties (Ithaca, 1960)Google Scholar; Hook, Sidney, Political Power and Personal Freedom (New York, 1959)Google Scholar; Rogge, O. John, The First and the Fifth (New York, 1960)Google Scholar; Beck, Carl, Contempt of Congress (New Orleans, 1959)Google Scholar; Rostow, Eugene V., Planning for Freedom (New Haven, 1959)Google Scholar; Black, Hugo L., “The Bill of Rights,” New York University Law Review, Vol. 35, pp. 865–881 (04, 1960)Google Scholar; Porter, Paul A., “The Supreme Court and Individual Liberties since 1952,” Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 48, pp. 48–62 (Fall, 1959)Google Scholar; Ulmer, S. Sidney, “Supreme Court Behavior and Civil Rights,” Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 288–311 (06, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marsh, Norman S., “Civil Liberties in Europe,” Law Quarterly Review, Vol. 75, pp. 530–552 (10, 1959)Google Scholar; McKay, Robert B., “The Preference for Freedom,” New York University Law Review, Vol. 34, pp. 1182–1227 (11, 1959)Google Scholar; Note, “State Enforcement of Federally Created Rights,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 73, pp. 1551–1564 (06, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rogge, O. John, “Unenumerated Rights,” California Law Review, Vol. 47, pp. 787–827 (December, 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carson, Ralph M., “The Prospect of Liberty,” Michigan Law Review, Vol. 58, pp. 1185–1216 (06, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wofford, Harris Jr., “Notre Dame Conference on Civil Rights,” Notre Dame Lawyer, Vol. 35, pp. 328–367 (05, 1960)Google Scholar; Symposium on Scopes v. State, University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 27, pp. 505–534 (Spring, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 361 U. S. 516 (1960).

53 357 U. S. 449 (1958). See this Review, Vol. 53, pp. 161–162 (March, 1959).

54 Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147 (1959). See Kilpatrick, James J., The Smut Peddlers (Garden City, N. Y., 1960)Google Scholar; Zuckman, Harvey L., “Obscenity in the Mails,” Southern California Law Review, Vol. 33, pp. 171–188 (Winter, 1960)Google Scholar.

55 362 U. S. 60 (1960). On free speech and related issues see: Levy, Leonard W., Legacy of Suppression: Freedom of Speech and Press in Early American History (Cambridge, 1960)Google Scholar; Castberg, Frede, Freedom of Speech in the West (New York, 1960)Google Scholar; Green, Leon, “The Right to Communicate,” New York University Law Review, Vol. 35, pp. 903–924 (04, 1960)Google Scholar; Williams, J. S., “Freedom to Speak—but only Ineffectively,” Texas Law Review, Vol. 38, pp. 373–391 (04, 1960)Google Scholar; Murphy, Walter F., “Mr. Justice Jackson, Free Speech, and the Judicial Function,” Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 12, pp. 1019–1046 (10, 1959)Google Scholar; Byse, Clark, “Academic Freedom, Tenure, and the Law: A Comment on Worzella v. Board of Regents,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 73, pp. 304–322 (December, 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meiklejohn, Alexander, “The Barenblatt Opinion,” University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 27, pp. 329–340 (Winter, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harry Kalven, Jr., “Mr. Alexander Meiklejohn and the Barenblatt Opinion,” ibid., pp. 315–328.

56 The Court cited such well-known handbill cases as Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 (1938); Schneider v. Irvington, 308 U. S. 147 (1939); Jamison v. Texas, 318 U. S. 413 (1943).

57 Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516 (1960); NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449 (1958).

58 Justice Clark mentioned the act of Congress which requires newspapers using second class privileges to publish the names of the editor, publisher, owner and stockholders, sustained in Lewis Publishing Co. v Morgan, 229 U. S. 288 (1913), and the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, which requires those engaged in lobbying to divulge their identities and give certain information to Congress, sustained in United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612 (1954).

59 Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U. S. 94 (1952).

60 Kreshik v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 363 U. S. 190 (1960). On freedom of religion issues see: Odegard, Peter H., Religion and Politics (New York, 1960)Google Scholar; Powell, Theodore, The School Bus Law (Middletown, Connecticut, 1960)Google Scholar; Blanshard, Paul, God and Man in Washington (Boston, 1960)Google Scholar; O'Brien, F. William, “Has Government an Interest in Religion?” Villanova Law Review, Vol. 5, pp. 335–374 (Spring, 1960)Google Scholar; Duffie, Virgil W. Jr., “The Requirement of a Religious Belief for Competency of a Witness,” South Carolina Law Quarterly, Vol. 11, pp. 548–553 (Summer, 1959)Google Scholar; Note, “Sunday Blue Laws: A New Battle on an Old Front,” Syracuse Law Review, Vol. 11, pp. 254–264 (Spring, 1960)Google Scholar; Note, “State Sunday Laws and the Religious Guarantees of the Federal Constitution,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 73, pp. 729–746 (02, 1960 CrossRefGoogle Scholar); Lipnick, Stanley M., “Sunday Laws, Released Time, and Bible Reading in the Public Schools,” George Washington Law Review, Vol. 28, pp. 579–615 (03, 1960)Google Scholar.

61 Nelson v. County of Los Angeles, 362 U. S. 1 (1960). See Grunbaum, Werner F., “The British Security Program, 1948–1958,” Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 764–779 (09, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Note, “Due Process and the ‘Right’ to a Job,” Virginia Law Review, Vol. 46, pp. 322–336 (03, 1960)Google Scholar.

62 Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of New York, 350 U. S. 551 (1956).

63 Beilan v. Board of Education of Philadelphia, 357 U. S. 399 (1958); Lerner v. Casey, 357 U. S. 468 (1958).

64 Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U. S. 199 (1960). On various subjects relating to the rights of the accused see: Harding, Arthur L., ed., Fundamental Law in Criminal Prosecutions (Dallas, 1959)Google Scholar; Goldstein, Joseph, “Police Discretion Not To Invoke the Criminal Process: Low-Visibility Decisions in the Administration of Justice,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 69, pp. 543–594 (03, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reitz, Curtis R., “Federal Habeas Corpus: Postconviction Remedy for State Prisoners,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 108, pp. 461–532 (02, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Note, “Community Hostility and the Right to an Impartial Jury,” Columbia Law Review, Vol. 60, pp. 349–380 (03, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Note, “The Caryl Chessman Case: A Legal Analysis,” Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 44, pp. 941–997 (04, 1960)Google Scholar; Antieau, Chester J., “The Constitutional Rights of Persons Charged with Violating Municipal Ordinances,” Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 48, pp. 1–42 (Fall, 1959)Google Scholar; McCoid, John C. II, “Right to Jury Trial in the Federal Courts,” Iowa Law Review, Vol. 45, pp. 726–742 (Summer, 1960)Google Scholar.

65 Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U. S. 199 (1960).

66 Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278 (1936).

67 Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227 (1940).

68 Hudson v. North Carolina, 363 U. S. 697 (1960). See: Comment, “The Right to Counsel in Misdemeanor Cases,” California Law Review, Vol. 48, pp. 501–515 (08, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price, 364 U. S. 263 (1960). See Allnutt, Robert F. and Mossinghoff, Gerald J., “Housing and Health Inspection,” George Washington Law Review, Vol. 28, pp. 421–453 (01, 1960)Google Scholar; Waters, D. W. M., “Rights of Entry in Administrative Officers,” University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 27, pp. 79–93 (Autumn, 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price, 360 U. S. 246 (1959). These Justices thought that the very recent decision of the Court in Frank v. Maryland, 359 U. S. 360 (1959) was controlling, and that it was contrary to the Court's own procedures to permit a constitutional issue settled so recently after thorough discussion to be reopened so soon.

71 359 U.S. 360 (1959).

72 See: Harris, Robert J., The Quest for Equality (Baton Rouge, 1960)Google Scholar; Black, Charles L. Jr., “The Lawfulness of the Segregation Decisions,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 69, pp. 421–430 (01, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pollitt, Daniel H., “Dime Store Demonstrations: Events and Legal Problems of First Sixty Days,” Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1960, pp. 315–365 (Summer, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rogers, William P., “Desegregation in the Schools: The Citizen's Responsibility,” Cornell Law Quarterly, Vol. 45, pp. 488–513 (Spring, 1960)Google Scholar; Pollak, Louis H., “Racial Discrimination and Judicial Integrity A Reply to Professor Wechsler,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 108, pp. 1–34 (11, 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Horowitz, Harold W., “The 1959 California Equal Rights in ‘Business Establishments’ Statute—A Problem in Statutory Application,” Southern California Law Review, Vol. 33, pp. 260–305 (Spring, 1960)Google Scholar; Currie, Brainerd and Schreter, H. H., “Unconstitutional Discrimination in the Conflict of Laws: Privileges and Immunities,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 69, pp. 1323–1391 (07, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Oberst, Paul, “The Supreme Court and States Rights,” Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 48, pp. 63–89 (Fall, 1959)Google Scholar; Note, “Employment Discrimination,” Race Relations Law Reporter, Vol. 5, pp. 569–592 (Summer, 1960)Google Scholar.

73 Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12 (1956); Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 (1959).

74 Douglas v. Green, 363 U. S. 192 (1960). See Wilkes, Daniel, “Constitutional Rights of Convicted Indigents in State Criminal Proceedings since Griffin v. Illinois ,” Temple Law Quarterly, Vol. 33, pp. 125–151 (Winter, 1959)Google Scholar.

75 Huron Portland Cement Co. v. Detroit, 362 U. S. 440 (1960).

76 362 U. S. 293 (1960).

77 362 U. S. 207 (1960). See Symposium on “State Taxation of Interstate Commerce,” Virginia Law Review, Vol. 46, pp. 1051–1326 (10, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 The Court held that General Trading Co. v. State Tax Com., 322 U. S. 335 (1944) was controlling. Miller Bros. Co. v. Maryland, 347 U. S 340 (1954) was distinguished.

79 Phillips Chemical Co. v. Dumas School District. 361 U. S. 376 (1960).

80 De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U. S. 144 (1960).

81 See Hochman, Charles B., “The Supreme Court and the Constitutionality of Retroactive Legislation,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 73, pp. 692–727 (02, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 325 U. S 538 (1945).

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.