Writing for the court majority Justice Jackson explained that the court should not step in and supersede the state's power to define something. Public Utilities were protected by the federal statute, and as there was no congressional definition of a 'Public Utility' in the law, the court had no right to create their own definition, or to limit the state's own definition.

Justice Jackson wrote the opinion for the court affirming the constitutionality of a New York State property Statute, and that statute’s retroactive nature. Part of the motivation for finding the statute constitutional, was that it was being challenged by ‘remaindermen’, those set to inherit the remainder of an estate after the other heirs, and that party had no vested property right that could be taken away.

Justice Jackson wrote the opinion for the court, setting aside the District of Columbia’s tax board decision, which imposed an inheritance tax on an individual. The court found that the appellate court had jurisdiction to intervene in the tax court’s rulings, when the facts that the tax court used were very wrong. The court affirmed the appellate court’s overturning of the inheritance tax.

The majority of the court ruled that the patent in question had been infringed upon, even though a combination patent was the only patent covering a part of a larger system that was not specifically patented. Justice Jackson dissented, disagreeing that the patent extended to all or any of the unpatentable parts.

The majority reversed a decision that set aside a rate order that the Federal Power Commission had issued on Natural Gas. The court carefully reviewed the facts and found that the rates were reasonable. Justice Jackson, in his dissent, argues that the case should have been returned to the Federal Power Commission because it is not the courts role to intervene in their judgment of price regulation for the public interest.

Justice Jackson wrote the opinion for the court, ruling that the circuit court should not have reinterpreted the tax code in their decision as that was the role of the tax court. The appellate court only had a right to step in on matters of law, not in factual determinations.

The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s ruling which allowed a man to collect worker’s compensation under both Texas’s and Louisianna’s Workman’s Compensation Laws. The Supreme Court ruled that he could pursue compensation in either state, but the Full Faith and Credit Clause precluded him from being compensated in both. Justice Jackson Wrote a concurring opinion, differentiating this case from Williams v. North Carolina, 317 US 287, and his dissent in that case.

Justice Jackson wrote the opinion of the court for this case, reversing a decision by a lower appeals court. The Supreme Court supported an injunction against C.M. Joiner Leasing Corp. for violations of the Securities Act of 1933, reasoning that the lower courts were wrong in saying that the Securities Act did not apply to the leases in question in this case.

Justice Jackson wrote the opinion for the court ruling that the Fire statute, 46 United States Code 182, took away the right to any monetary recovery by Zosenjo for his goods that were damaged by fire while being shipped. The court found that the protections of the Fire Statute applied not only to protection the owners of ships, but also for damage to cargo caused by other factors.