Supreme Court of the United States, 1957

Justice Black's opinion for the Court, announced by Justice Douglas, held that California could exercise personal jurisdiction over a Texas insurer in an action arising from a single insurance contract substantially connected with California.

Justice Black delivered the unanimous opinion reversing dismissal of Black railroad employees’ suit against their bargaining representative. The National Railroad Adjustment Board lacked exclusive jurisdiction over the employees’ statutory fair-representation claim, and the railroad was not an indispensable party on…

The Court held per curiam that Alcorta was denied due process when the prosecutor knowingly elicited testimony falsely portraying the sole eyewitness’s relationship with Alcorta’s wife as merely a casual friendship.

The Court affirmed the constitutionality of New York’s § 22‑a, holding that the statute’s limited injunctive remedy for obscene publications does not constitute an impermissible prior restraint under the First Amendment or Due Process Clause.

The Court, through Justice Brennan, affirmed both convictions, holding that obscenity is outside constitutionally protected speech and press. It approved judging whether the dominant theme of material taken as a whole appeals to the average person's prurient interest under contemporary community standards, rejected…

The Court upheld New York’s § 22‑a, holding that its limited, prompt‑trial injunction scheme for obscene publications does not violate the First Amendment or the Due Process Clause. The majority distinguished the statute from Near v.

The Court reversed the Smith Act conspiracy convictions and directed acquittals for five petitioners and new trials for nine. It construed “organize” to cover the creation of an organization, not its continuing activities, making the organizing charge untimely.

The Court, through Chief Justice Warren, held that Watkins’ conviction for contempt of Congress violated Fifth Amendment due process because the committee failed to identify its subject of inquiry and explain the pertinency of its questions with sufficient clarity when he had to decide whether to answer.

Justice Frankfurter’s opinion held that state disbarment does not automatically require federal disbarment. Federal courts retain independent responsibility to determine whether reciprocal discipline accords with principles of right and justice.

The Court reversed Sweezy’s contempt judgment, but no rationale received five votes. Chief Justice Warren, joined by Black, Douglas, and Brennan, concluded that compelling disclosures about Sweezy’s university lectures and political associations violated due process because the legislature’s sweeping investigative…

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Douglas, held that § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act authorizes federal courts to fashion federal substantive law enforcing collective-bargaining agreements, including specific enforcement of grievance-arbitration provisions.

Justice Whittaker delivered the Court's opinion holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) exclusively governs venue in patent infringement actions and is not supplemented by the general corporate venue provision, § 1391(c). The 1948 revision made no substantive change to the patent venue statute construed in Stonite.

Justice Burton's opinion held that the Government's informer's privilege must yield when disclosure is relevant and helpful to the defense or essential to a fair determination, under a case-specific balance of law-enforcement interests and the accused's ability to prepare a defense.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Supreme Court of New Mexico's denial of habeas corpus, holding that the withdrawal of a blood sample from an unconscious collision suspect by a hospital physician, without his consent, did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court held that Michigan's obscenity statute criminalizing the distribution of books deemed harmful to youth violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and reversed Butler's conviction.

The Court held that a Federal Employers’ Liability Act claim must go to the jury when the evidence reasonably supports a finding that employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the employee’s injury.