TOWERY

v.

NORTH CAROLINA

Citator

Cited By

• McGOWAN v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1961)
  …eir Maker.” See also Ullner v. Ohio, 358 U. S. 131; Kidd v. Ohio, 358 U. S. 132; McGee v. North Carolina, 346 U. S. 802; cf. Grochowiak v. Pennsylvania, 358 U. S. 47; Gundaker Cent. Motors, Inc., v. Gassert, 354 U. S. 933; Towery v. North Carolina, 347 U. S. 925. As respects the First Amendment the court said: “It does not set up a church, make attendance upon religious worship compulsory, impose restrictions upon expression of religious belief, work a restriction upon the exercise of religion according t…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• ROE v. United States, 287 F.2d 435 (5th Cir. 1961)
  …ing more than a mere “offering [of] naked leasehold rights,” 320 U.S. at page 348, 64 S.Ct. at page 122, or, in a different situation, the mere fee ownership of a piece of land, Blackwell v. Bentsen, 5 Cir., 1953, 203 F. 2d 690, certiorari dismissed 347 U.S. 925, 74 S.Ct. 528, 98 L.Ed. 1078. Regarded as relevant and sufficient by Joiner were these factors. The “economic inducements of the proposed and promised exploration well”; submitting a proposition to prospects to sell them “documents which offered the…
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 497 F.2d 473 (5th Cir. 1974)
  …ts. That this definition comports with the standard applied by the Supreme Court and this Circuit is witnessed by an examination of the reasoning employed in Howey, supra, and in Blackwell v. Bentsen, 203 F. 2d 690 (5th Cir. 1953), cert. dismissed, 347 U.S. 925, 74 S.Ct. 528, 98 L.Ed. 1078 (1954). In Howey, the Court of Appeals had concluded that an investment contract did not exist where the management and cultivation of citrus acreage was entrusted to the promoter, with the rate of the investor’s return…