Us Supreme Court Court December 1908 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Paddell Vs. New York
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-21-1908
Paddell v. New York - 211 U.S. 446 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Paddell v. New York, 211 U.S. 446 (1908) Paddell v. New York No. 42 Argued December 7, 1908 Decided December 21, 1908 211 U.S. 446 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Syllabus Long settled habits of the community play an important part in determining question of constitutional law, and the fact that a method of taxation was in force for many year from a time antedating the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment is a reason for not considering that it was overthrown thereby. Notwithstanding the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, land subject to mortgage may be taxed for its full value without deduction of the mortgage debt from the valuation either of the land or of the owner's personal property. In New York, a tax on land operates in rem, at least without regard to the interests of different persons in the land. A constitution cannot be carried out with mathematical nicety to logica...
Butler Vs. Frazee
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-21-1908
Butler v. Frazee - 211 U.S. 459 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Butler v. Frazee, 211 U.S. 459 (1908) Butler v. Frazee No. 36 Argued December 3, 1908 Decided December 21, 1908 211 U.S. 459 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus The common law rule of assumption of known risk by the employee has never been modified by statute in the District of Columbia, and even if hardship results, the Court must enforce the rule. One understanding the condition of machinery and dangers arising therefrom, or who is capable of so doing and voluntarily, in the course of employment, exposes himself thereto, assumes the risk thereof, and if injury results, cannot recover against his employer. Although the plaintiff, if of full age and understanding, may testify to the contrary, where the elements and combination out of which the danger arises are so visible and have been of such longstanding that the dangers are obvious to all, the question is one of law for the court, ...
Mccandless Vs. Pratt
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-21-1908
McCandless v. Pratt - 211 U.S. 437 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court McCandless v. Pratt, 211 U.S. 437 (1908) McCandless v. Pratt No. 109 Argued November 6, 9, 1908 Decided December 21, 1908 211 U.S. 437 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII Syllabus The jurisdiction of this Court can only be invoked by a party having a personal interest in the litigation. Smith v. Indiana, 191 U. S. 138 . A writ of error will not lie to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Hawaii dismissing the bill in a suit brought by a taxpayer to enjoin the land commissioner from an alleged unauthorized use of public lands where it does not appear that complainant would be personally injured by the threatened use. Page 211 U. S. 438 Quaere, and not decided, whether any citizen and taxpayer has a right to maintain a suit in the courts of Hawaii to enjoin the land commissioner from acts involving unauthorized use of public land, or whether, if that right exists, a personal loss to comp...
Bailey Vs. Alabama
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-21-1908
Bailey v. Alabama - 211 U.S. 452 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Bailey v. Alabama, 211 U.S. 452 (1908) Bailey v. Alabama No. 538 Submitted November 12, 1908 Decided December 21, 1908 211 U.S. 452 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA Syllabus This Court cannot require the state court to release persons held for trial because the evidence fails to show probable cause, and in this case, the judgment of the highest court of the state dismissing a writ of habeas corpus is affirmed without consideration of the questions on the merit and the constitutionality of the state statutes under which the accused was held, although such questions were discussed by the state court. Quaere, and not decided, whether the statutes of Alabama involved in this case establish a system of peonage in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States. The facts are stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a writ of error to reverse ...
Mccorquodale Vs. Texas
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-21-1908
McCorquodale v. Texas - 211 U.S. 432 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court McCorquodale v. Texas, 211 U.S. 432 (1908) McCorquodale v. Texas No. 38 Argued December 3, 1908 Decided December 21, 1908 211 U.S. 432 ERROR TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS Syllabus It is too late to raise the federal question for the first time in petition for rehearing in the state court of last resort unless, and it must so appear, that court actually entertains the motion and passes upon the federal question; where the order is merely a denial of the motion, the writ of error will be dismissed. Writ of error to review 98 S.W. 879 dismissed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Page 211 U. S. 433 MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court. Plaintiff in error, on March 10, 1905, was indicted by the grand jury of the District Court of Brazos County, Texas, for the murder of one Henry Spell. He was brought to trial and convicted of murder in the first degree, the jury fixi...
United States Vs. Keitel
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-14-1908
United States v. Keitel - 211 U.S. 370 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Keitel, 211 U.S. 370 (1908) United States v. Keitel No. 286 Argued October 22, 23, 26, 1908 Decided December 14, 1908 211 U.S. 370 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Syllabus Where an indictment is quashed because the facts charged are not within the statute, the government has an appeal under the Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246. While abstractly there may be a difference between "interpretation" and "construction," in common usage, the words have the same significance, and "construction," as employed in the Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246, includes interpretation. Under 2347-2350, Rev.Stat., a person who is qualified to enter coal lands in his own behalf is prohibited from making an entry ostensibly for himself but in fact as agent for another who is disqualified, and an agreement to obtain land for a disqualified person ...
Hutchins Vs. William W. Bierce, Ltd.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-14-1908
Hutchins v. William W. Bierce, Ltd. - 211 U.S. 429 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Hutchins v. William W. Bierce, Ltd., 211 U.S. 429 (1908) Hutchins v. William W. Bierce, Limited No. 447 Argued November 29, 1908 Decided December 14, 1908 211 U.S. 429 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF HAWAII Syllabus On appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Hawaii, dismissed because not final. Cotton v. Hawaii, ante, p. 211 U. S. 162 . The facts are stated in the opinion. Page 211 U. S. 430 MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court. The case has been before this Court once already. 205 U. S. 205 U.S. 340. It was an action of replevin, and was tried by a judge without a jury. The judge found that the allegations of the complaint were proved, and that the plaintiff, William W. Bierce, Limited, was entitled to recover. He also made a series of findings in detail, establishing the plaintiff's case and excluding certain defenses. These findings were except...
Harriman Vs. Icc
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-14-1908
Harriman v. ICC - 211 U.S. 407 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court Harriman v. ICC, 211 U.S. 407 (1908) Harriman v. Interstate Commerce Commission Nos. 315-317 Argued November 3, 4, 1908 Decided December 14, 1908 211 U.S. 407 APPEALS FROM TUE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus The primary purpose of the Interstate Commerce Act is to regulate interstate business of carriers, and the secondary purpose, that for which the commission was established, to enforce the regulations enacted by it, and the power to require testimony is limited, as is usual in English-speaking countries, to investigations concerning a specific breach of the existing law; this power is not extended to mere investigations by provisions in any of the amendatory acts in regard to annual reports of interstate carriers, or of the commission, or for the purpose of recommending legislation. Quaere whether Congress has unlimited power to compel testimony in regard to subje...
United States Vs. Herr
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-14-1908
United States v. Herr - 211 U.S. 404 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Herr, 211 U.S. 404 (1908) United States v. Herr No. 291 Argued October 22, 23, 26, 1908 Decided December 14, 1908 211 U.S. 404 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Syllabus Decided on the authority of United States v. Keitel, ante, p. 211 U. S. 370 , and United States v. Forrester, ante, p. 211 U. S. 399 . 157 F. 396, reversed. Page 211 U. S. 405 The facts are stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. The court below sustained a demurrer to the indictment in this case, for the reasons which caused it to quash the first count of the indictment in the case of United States v. F. W. Keitel, ante, p. 211 U. S. 370 . The indictment alleged a conspiracy to defraud the United States of coal lands, in violation of 5440, Rev.Stat. The conspiracy charged was, speaking in a broad sense, of the same general nature...
United States Vs. Forrester
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-14-1908
United States v. Forrester - 211 U.S. 399 (1908) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Forrester, 211 U.S. 399 (1908) United States v. Forrester No. 287 Argued October 22, 23, 26, 1908 Decided December 14, 1908 211 U.S. 399 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Syllabus United States v. Keitel, ante, p. 211 U. S. 370 , followed; the rule therein stated as to fraudulent entries of coal lands under 2347-2350, Rev.Stat., by qualified persons for the benefit, and as agents of, disqualified persons, applies not only to cash entries, but also to entries under preferential rights by persons opening and developing mines on the lands entered. The preferential right under 2348, 2349, Rev.Stat., is not in and of itself the equivalent of an entry uncontrolled by the prohibitions expressed in the statutes relating to entries of coal lands, but is simply Page 211 U. S. 400 a privilege to make the statutory entry of a particular tract in prefe...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »