District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina Court Cases

Search
  1. United States v. Livingston (1959)

    N. Welch Morrisette, U. S. Atty., Columbia, S. C., Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., H. Eugene Heine, Jr., and Lloyd J. Keno, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff United States.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina Docket: Civ. A. No. AC-174
  2. Briggs v. Elliott (1955)

    This Court in its prior decisions in this case, 98 F.Supp. 529; 103 F.Supp. 920, followed what it conceived to be the law as laid down in prior decisions of the Supreme Court, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 41 L.Ed. 256; Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78, 48 S.Ct. 91, 72 L.Ed. 172, that nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States forbids segregation of the races in the public schools provided equal facilities are accorded the children of all races. [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina Docket: Civ. A. No. 2657
  3. Cooper Agency, Inc. v. McLeod (1964)

    These ten actions have their origin in certain jeopardy transferee assessments made by the District Director of Internal Revenue against certain members of the Cooper family and several corporations and associations on September 16, 1963, in a total amount of approximately $9,000,000. It appears from the complaints that the District Director proposed additional deficiencies against the plaintiffs, also in substantial amounts.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina Docket: Civ. A. Nos. AC-1283, 1295, 1309, 1348, 1349, 1350, 1351, 1352, 1353 and 1354
  4. Drafts v. Celebrezze (1965)

    Action by plaintiff to set aside a final decision by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare that he was not "disabled" within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Judicial review is limited to a determination of whether or not the Secretary's decision is supported by "substantial evidence." If it is so supported, it must be affirmed; however, if undue reliance has been placed upon one portion of the record to the disregard of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then the [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina Docket: Civ. A. No. AC-1536
  5. Hill v. Celebrezze (1964)

    Plaintiff and defendant seek summary judgment in the above case. This is an action under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g)) to review a final decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare that plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the act on or before September 30, 1958, when he last met the earnings requirement and continuing to the date of filing his disability application on February 1, 1961.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina Docket: Civ. A. No. AC-1161
  6. Hartline v. Clary (1956)

    These two actions were brought in the State Court against the defendants and were removed to this court on the ground that the defendants were special agents of the Alcohol & Tobacco Tax Division of the United States Treasury Department, and were acting as such at the times mentioned in the complaints.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina Docket: Civ. A. Nos. 3688, 3689
  7. Jackson v. United States (1964)

    Plaintiff brought suit pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346[b], Federal Tort Claims Act, to recover for injuries to his right ankle allegedly received while he was a patient at Veterans Administration Hospital, Columbia, South Carolina. In his complaint he alleges that on or about December 16, 1958, he was admitted to the Marion Memorial Hospital in Marion, South Carolina, suffering from a cerebral vascular accident; that on December 23, 1958, he was transferred to the Veterans Administration [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina Docket: Civ. A. No. 8014
  8. United States v. Zerbst (1953)

    "1. There was no legally competent evidence before the United States Commissioner at the preliminary hearing to sustain a finding of probable cause of the commission of any Federal offense by the Defendant.

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina Docket: 2720-A
  9. Ex Parte Atkinson (1949)

    The petitioner petitions the Court to vacate the judgment and sentence in the above cases under the provisions of Section 2255, 28 U.S.C.A., upon the ground, among others, that he was not guilty of the offense charged in the indictment and information to which he plead guilty.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina Docket: Crim. Nos. 17388, 17410
  10. Brown v. School District No. 20 (1963)

    Matthew J. Perry, Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., Columbia, S. C., Constance Baker Motley, Jack Greenberg, Michael Meltsner, New York City, F. Henderson Moore, Benjamin Cooke, Charleston, S. C., for plaintiffs.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina Docket: Civ. A. No. 7747
  11. Gaines W. Harrison & Sons, Inc. v. JI Case Company (1960)

    This cause was tried before me and a jury at Columbia at the June, 1959 term. It resulted in jury verdicts in favor of the plaintiff for $40,000.00 on its Second Cause of Action and for $5,000.00 on its Fourth Cause of Action, the First Cause of Action having been withdrawn by the plaintiff at the opening of the trial and I having directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on its Third Cause of Action during the course of the trial and subsequently, on June 25, 1959, issuing a formal order to [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina Docket: CA. No. AC-141
  12. Lesesne v. Willingham (1949)

    The plaintiff sues the defendant Western Union Telegraph Company and H. G. Willingham for libel based upon the telegraph company's acceptance, transmission and delivery of two telegrams over its usual and customary channels of local transmission in the City of Columbia, South Carolina.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina Docket: Civ. A. No. 2047
  13. Bleuer v. United States (1950)

    This is a suit against the United States upon an alleged contract of employment. Plaintiff demanded a jury trial. Upon the call of the case, it appeared that this action was brought under authority of Title 28, U.S.C. § 1346 (2). This is what was formerly and commonly called the Tucker Act. It is well established that cases brought under the Tucker Act are triable before the Court without a jury. This matter, being brought to the attention of Plaintiff's counsel, they acquiesced in this point [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina Docket: Civ. No. 2543
  14. Blackwell v. Vance Trucking Company (1956)

    In this action, which grows out of a collision between two motor vehicles, the defendant, appearing specially, has filed (1) a motion to set aside the service of the summons and complaint, and (2) a motion to dismiss the action for improper venue.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina Docket: Civ. A. No. 4857
  15. Buist v. United States (1958)

    The issue is whether money expended in repairing damage to a dwelling caused by termites is deductible as a "casualty loss" within the meaning of Section 165(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 165(c) (3).


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina Docket: Civ. A. No. 6494
  16. The Shreveport (1930)

    Adams, Adams & Douglas, of Savannah, Ga., Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, of New York City, and Barnwell & Black, of Charleston, S. C. (T. Catesby Jones, of New York City, and N. B. Barnwell, of Charleston, S. C., of counsel), for libelants.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina
  17. Sox v. United States (1960)

    This action is brought against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346. The plaintiff, a minor, by her guardian ad litem, seeks to recover for prenatal injuries allegedly sustained by her when an automobile in which her mother was riding as a passenger was struck by a United States Army automobile driven by a military policeman. The government has admitted by stipulation that it is liable for any injuries which the infant may have sustained in the collision but [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina Docket: AC/403
  18. Federal Insurance Company v. Speight (1963)

    This is a declaratory judgment action brought by the plaintiff, a New Jersey Corporation, against the defendants, citizens and residents of South Carolina, for adjudication of plaintiff's liability with regard to a policy of liability insurance issued by the plaintiff to the defendant Charles Norman Speight, also known as Norman C. Speight, and under which his wife, the defendant Pauline B. Speight, was also an insured.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina Docket: Civ. A. No. 1081
  19. Nutt v. Ellerbe (1932)

    The plaintiff filed his bill for an injunction against the defendants to prevent them from enforcing acts of the state of South Carolina which will be hereinafter cited, on the ground that those statutes are in conflict with the Constitution of the United States. A temporary restraining order was granted pending the hearing upon the application for an interlocutory injunction by three judges pursuant to section 266 of the Judicial Code (28 USCA § 380). The application has been heard before [...]

    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina
  20. Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Ins. Co. v. Gupton (1965)

    Motion by plaintiff insurance company under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, alleging that it is under no obligation or duty to appear and defend in the action by defendant Gupton against defendant Williams because of plaintiff's policy of liability insurance issued to Gupton's employer, Riggs Esso Service Station, or by reason of the South Carolina Uninsured Motorist Act.


    Court: District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina Docket: Civ. A. No. 8501

1 of 10 Page(s)

Page:
  1. 2
  2. 3
  3. 4
  4. 5