Court : US Supreme Court
Vandalia R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n - 242 U.S. 255 (1916) U.S. Supreme Court Vandalia R. Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 242 U.S. 255 (1916) Vandalia Railroad Company v. Public Service Commission of Indiana No. 81 Submitted November 6, 1916 Decided December 11, 1916 242 U.S. 255 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF INDIANA Syllabus Prior to the Act of March 4, 1915, c. 169, 38 Stat. 1192, and after the Act of February 17, 1911, c. 103, 36 Stat. 913, the state police power extended to the regulation of the character of headlights used on Page 242 U. S. 256 locomotives employed in interstate commerce. Atlantic Coast Line v. Georgia, 234 U. S. 280 . A judgment which correctly refused injunctive relief against such state regulation may not be attacked on writ of error as a judgment infringing federal rights (Judicial Code, 237) upon the ground that the same field of regulation has since been occupied by tho federal government under an act of Congress enacted af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Wood - 299 U.S. 123 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123 (1936) United States v. Wood No. 34 Argued October 20, 1936 Decided December 7, 1936 299 U.S. 123 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus 1. Bias of a prospective juror may be actual or implied -- i.e., bias in fact or bias conclusively presumed as a matter of law. P. 299 U. S. 133 . 2. The Act of August 22, 1935, concerning qualifications of jurors in the District of Columbia, leaves all prospective jurors subject to examination and rejection for actual bias. Id. 3. In dealing with an employee of the Government, summoned to jury service in a criminal case, the court should be solicitous to discover whether, in view of the nature or circumstances of his employment, or of the relation of his particular governmental activity to the matters involved in the prosecution, he has actual bias. P 299 U. S. 134 . Page 299 U. S. 12...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Chisholm v. Georgia - 2 U.S. 419 (1793) U.S. Supreme Court Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793) Chisholm v. Georgia 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 Page 2 U. S. 429 Iredell, Justice. This great cause comes before the Court on a motion made by the Attorney General that an order be made by this Court to the following effect: "That, unless the State of Georgia shall, after reasonable notice of this motion, cause an appearance to be entered on behalf of the said State on the fourth day of next Term, or show cause to the contrary, judgment shall be entered for the plaintiff, and a writ of enquiry shall be awarded." Before such an order be made, it is proper that this Court should be satisfied it hath cognizance of the suit; for, to be sure, we ought not to enter a conditional judgment (which this would be) in a case where we were not fully persuaded we had authority to do so. This is the first instance wherein the important question involved in this cause has come regularly be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Fletcher v. Peck - 10 U.S. 87 (1810) U.S. Supreme Court Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 6 Cranch 87 87 (1810) Fletcher v. Peck 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus If the breach of covenant assigned be that the State had no authority to sell and dispose of the land, it is not a good plea in bar to say that the Governor was legally empowered to sell and convey the premises, although the facts stated in the plea as inducement are sufficient to justify a direct negative of the breach assigned. It is not necessary that a breach of covenant be assigned in the very words of the covenant. It is sufficient if it show a substantial breach. The Court will not declare a law to be unconstitutional unless the opposition between the Constitution and the law be clear and plain. The Legislature of Georgia, in 1795, had the power of disposing of the unappropriated lands within its own limits. In a contest between two individuals claiming und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Trustees of Dartmouth Coll. v. Woodward - 17 U.S. 518 (1819) U.S. Supreme Court Trustees of Dartmouth Coll. v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 4 Wheat. 518 518 (1819) Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Syllabus The charter granted by the British Crown to the trustees of Dartmouth College, in New Hampshire, in the year 1769, is a contract within the meaning of that clause of the Constitution of the United States, art. 1, s. 10, which declares that no state shall make any law impairing the obligation of contracts. The charter was not dissolved by the Revolution. An act of the State Legislature of New Hampshire altering the charter without the consent of the corporation in a material respect, is an act impairing the obligation of the charter, and is unconstitutional and void. Under its charter, Dartmouth College was a private, and not a public, corporation. That a corporation is established for purposes o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Houston v. Moore - 18 U.S. 1 (1820) U.S. Supreme Court Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1 (1820) Houston v. Moore 18 U.S. 1 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus The Act of the State of Pennsylvania, of 28 March 1814, providing (section twenty one) that the officers and privates of the militia of that state neglecting or refusing to serve when called into actual service in pursuance of any order or requisition of the President of the United States shall be liable to the penalties defined in the Act of Congress of 28 February, 1795, c. 277, or to any penalty which may have been prescribed since the date of that act, or which may hereafter be prescribed by any law of the United States, and also providing for the trial of such delinquents by a state court martial, and that a list of the delinquents fined by such court should be furnished to the marshal of the United States, &c.;, and also to the Comptroller of the Treasury of the United States, in order that the furthe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ogden v. Saunders - 25 U.S. 213 (1827) U.S. Supreme Court Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 213 213 (1827) Ogden v. Saunders 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 213 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus A bankrupt or insolvent law of any state which discharges both the person of the debtor and his future acquisitions of property is not "a law impairing the obligation of contracts" so far as respects debts contracted subsequent to the passage of such law in those cases where the contract was made between citizens of the state under whose laws the discharge was obtained and in whose courts the discharge may be pleaded. The power given to the United States by the Constitution, "to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States" is not exclusive of the right of the states to legislate on the same subject except when the power is actually in exercise by Congress and the laws of the state are in conflict with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
The Palmyra - 25 U.S. 1 (1827) U.S. Supreme Court The Palmyra, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 1 1 (1827) The Palmyra 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 1 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Syllabus A question of probable cause of seizure under the Piracy Acts of 3 March, 1819, c. 75, and 15 May, 1820, c. 112. General rule as to libels in rem. How far the strict rules of the common law as to pleading in criminal cases are applicable to informations in rem. How far a previous prosecution in personam is necessary to found the proceeding in rem. In such a case, although the crew may be protected by a commission bona fide received and acted under from the consequences attaching to the offense of piracy by the general law of nations, although such commission was irregularly issued, yet if the defects in the commission be such as, connected with the insubordination and predatory spirit of the crew, to excite a justly founded suspicion, it is sufficient under the act of Congress to justif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo - 26 U.S. 110 (1828) U.S. Supreme Court Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 110 110 (1828) Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 110 Syllabus In the District Court of the United States for the District of Georgia, a libel was filed claiming certain Africans as the property of the libellant which had been brought into the State of Georgia and were seized by the authority of the governor of the state for an alleged illegal importation; process was issued against the slaves, but was not served. The case was taken by appeal to the circuit court, and the Governor of Georgia filed a paper in the nature of a stipulation importing to hold the Africans subject to the decree of the circuit court, &c.; Held that such a stipulation could not give jurisdiction in the case to the circuit court, as process could not issue legally from the circuit court against the Africans, because it would be the exercise of original jurisdiction in admira...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia - 30 U.S. 1 (1831) U.S. Supreme Court Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 5 Pet. 1 1 (1831) Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 Syllabus Motion for an injunction to prevent the execution of certain acts of the Legislature of the State of Georgia in the territory of the Cherokee Nation, on behalf of the Cherokee Nation, they claiming to proceed in the Supreme Court of the United States as a foreign state against the State of Georgia under the provision of the Constitution of the United States which gives to the Court jurisdiction in controversies in which a State of the United States or the citizens thereof, and a foreign state, citizens, or subjects thereof are parties. The Cherokee Nation is not a foreign state in the sense in which the terms "foreign state" is used in the Constitution of the United States. The third article of the Constitution of the United States describes the extent of the judicial power. The second section closes an en...
Tag this Judgment!