<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="0.91">
 <channel>
  <title>The Oyez Project: 1935 Term</title>
  <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1935/</link>
  <description>U.S. Supreme Court Cases, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</description>
  <language>en-us</language>
  
   <item>
    <title>Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (No. 404)</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;The Tennessee Valley Authority was a government corporation established as part of the New Deal to improve the economy of the state. For example, projects of the TVA included improving navigation on the state's rivers, constructing flood control projects, and generating hydroelectric power. Shareholders in a private Tennessee power company sued to prevent the TVA from acquiring over half of the company's property and equipment. The proposed contract which detailed the sale would allow the government agency to allocate electric power to consumers.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1935/1935_404/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Carter v. Carter Coal Company (No. 636)</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;In 1935, Congress enacted the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act, also known as the Guffey Coal Act. The Act regulated prices, minimum wages, maximum hours, and "fair practices" of the coal industry. Although compliance was voluntary, tax refunds were established as incentives to abide by the regulations. Carter, a stockholder, brought suit against his own company in an attempt to keep it from paying the tax for noncompliance. This case was decided together with R.C. Tway Coal Co. v. Clark, R.C. Tway Coal Co. v. Glenn, and Halvering v. Carter.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1935/1935_636/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Morehead v. New York (No. 838)</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;A New York minimum wage law empowered the state labor commission to fix wages in relation to the class of service rendered. This fixing of wages in relation to value was an attempt to satisfy the Supreme Court's narrow view of minimum wage legislation.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1935/1935_838/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>United States v. Butler (No. 401)</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;As part of the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act, Congress implemented a processing tax on agricultural commodities, from which funds would be redistributed to farmers who promised to reduce their acreage. The Act intended to solve the crisis in agricultural commodity prices which was causing many farmers to go under.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1935/1935_401/</link>
   </item>
  
 </channel>
</rss>
