United States v. White

United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that recording conversations using concealed radio transmitters worn by informants does not violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and thus does not require a warrant.

Facts and Procedural History

Criminal defendant White was convicted of narcotics charges in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The conviction was based on evidence obtained from recorded conversations in 1965 and 1966 between the defendant White and a government informant wearing a concealed radio transmitter. White appealed the conviction, claiming the conversations were recorded without his permission, that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy (see Katz), and the conversations were recorded without a warrant, violating his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Thus, White argued that the recorded conversations should not have been admitted as evidence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 405 F.2d 838, reversed the district court and remanded, and certiorari was granted.

Breedlove v. Suttles

Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937), is a United States Supreme Court decision which upheld the constitutionality of requiring the payment of a poll tax in order to vote in state elections.

Background

At the relevant time, Georgia imposed a poll tax of $1.00 per year, levied generally on all inhabitants. The statute exempted from the tax all persons under 21 or over 60 years of age, and all females who do not register for voting. Under the state constitution, the tax must be paid by the person liable, together with arrears, before he can be registered for voting.

Nolan Breedlove, a white male, 28 years of age, declined to pay the tax, and was not allowed to register to vote. He filed a lawsuit challenging the Georgia law under the Fourteenth (both the Equal Protection Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause) and the Nineteenth Amendments. T. Earl Suttles was named defendant in the case in his official capacity as tax collector of Fulton County, Georgia.

Taylor v. Standard Gas & Electric Co.

Taylor v. Standard Gas and Electric Company, 306 U.S. 307 (1939), was an important United States Supreme Court case that laid down the "Deep Rock doctrine" as a rule of bankruptcy and corporate law. This holds that claims, as creditors, upon an insolvent subsidiary company by controlling shareholders or other insiders, like managers or directors, will be subordinated to the claims of all other creditors.

Facts

The Deep Rock Oil Corporation was an undercapitalized subsidiary of the defendant Standard Gas Company.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that, where a subsidiary corporation declares bankruptcy and an insider or controlling shareholder of that subsidiary corporation asserts claims as a creditor against the subsidiary, loans made by the insider to the subsidiary corporation may be deemed to receive the same treatment as shares of stock owned by the insider. Therefore, the insider's claims will be subordinated to the claims of all other creditors, i.e. other creditors will be paid first, and if there is nothing left after other creditors are paid then the insider gets nothing. This also applies (and indeed the doctrine was first established) where a parent company asserts such claims against its own subsidiary.

S660A

In its United Kingdom Tax Bulletin 64 (April 2003), the Inland Revenue (now HM Revenue and Customs) announced new guidance on the "settlements legislation". This is a body of law which seeks to prevent someone (known as the "settlor") from avoiding tax by reclassifying income as belonging to someone else (known as the beneficiary). The income is then taxed at the beneficiary’s lower rate although the settlor continues to benefit from it. The legislation targets spouses and also parents seeking to divert income via their minor children.

The section of the legislation is 660A of the UK Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. Using the revised (April 2003) interpretation of s.660A, UK HMRC have been targeting businesses set up by spouses where they are aware that income is split between the spouses, and only one of them directly generates that income. In theory s.660A can apply to partnerships as well as limited companies, this has yet to be tested in the UK courts. In 2007 the interpretation was finally rejected by the Law Lords, resulting in the government proposing new leglisation to tackle the perceived abuse.

Sikorsky S-76

The Sikorsky S-76 is an American medium-size commercial utility helicopter, manufactured by the Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation. The S-76 features twin turboshaft engines, four-bladed main and tail rotors and retractable landing gear.

Development

The development of the S-76 began in the mid-1970s as the S-74, with the design goal of providing a medium helicopter for corporate transportation and the oil drilling industry; the S-74 was later re-designated the S-76 in honor of the U.S. Bicentennial. Sikorsky's design work on the S-70 helicopter (which was selected for use by the United States Army as the UH-60 Black Hawk) was utilized in the development of the S-76, incorporating S-70 design technology in its rotor blades and rotor heads. It was the first Sikorsky helicopter designed purely for commercial rather than military use.

The prototype first flew on March 13, 1977. Initial US Federal Aviation Administration type certification was granted on November 21, 1978, with the first customer delivery on February 27, 1979. The S-76 was named "Spirit" late in 1978, but this name was officially dropped by the company on October 9, 1980 due to translation issues into some foreign languages.

Ša (cuneiform)

The cuneiform ša sign is a common, multi-use sign, a syllabic for ša, and an alphabetic sign used for š, or a; it is common in both the Epic of Gilgamesh over hundreds of years, and the 1350 BC Amarna letters.

Besides ša usage in word components of verbs, nouns, etc., it has a major usage between words. In Akkadian, for English language "who", it is an interrogative pronoun; in the Akkadian language as ša, (as "that", "what"; ("that (of)", "which (of)"), in English it used for who, what, which, etc..

Ša, and Ka, the stroke differences

The difference in the construction of the signs ka and ša are as follows: "ka" when scribed in the Amarna letters often shows the distinctiveness of the right section of the sign, versus the left section. For ša, the right section is constructed with two wedge strokes (one scribed above the other), between the two verticals, at right. For ka, the right side mostly, in the Amarna letters has two verticals, with two horizontals that cross both of them; (the right side is like a two-step ladder shape—(for Hittite ka:—)). A good example of ša, is shown for EA 365, Reverse (top half), where the 2-wedge strokes of ša between the 2-right verticals is clear. (Note, the ša of EA 365 appears to have 3-horizontals at left (differing lengths), then the 2-verticals with the 2-wedge strokes, at right.)

Watson v. Jones

Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1872), is a United States Supreme Court case. The case was based upon a dispute regarding the Third or Walnut Street Presbyterian Church in Louisville, Kentucky. The Court held that in adjudications of church property disputes, 1) courts cannot rule on the truth or falsity of a religious teaching, 2) where a previous authority structure existed before the dispute, courts should defer to the decision of that structure, and 3) in the absence of such an internal authority structure, courts should defer to the wishes of a majority of the congregation. Because the Walnut Street Presbyterian Church had a clear internal authority structure, the court granted control of the property to that group, even though it was only supported by a minority of the congregation.