Original action filed in U.S. Supreme Court; order to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue, December 1801
Holding
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the judiciary to interpret what the Constitution permits.
Original action filed in U.S. Supreme Court; order to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue, December 1801
Holding
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the judiciary to interpret what the Constitution permits.
17 S. Ct. 427; 41 L. Ed. 832; 1897 U.S. LEXIS 1998
Case history
Prior
Trial court held for defendant, Allgeyer. Louisiana Supreme Court reversed. 48 La. Ann. 104.
Holding
States may not prohibit citizens from contracting insurance out of state for acts performed outside the state.
States may not prohibit citizens from contracting insurance out of state by written communication, even if the property to be insured is within the state.
17 S. Ct. 427; 41 L. Ed. 832; 1897 U.S. LEXIS 1998
Case history
Prior
Trial court held for defendant, Allgeyer. Louisiana Supreme Court reversed. 48 La. Ann. 104.
Holding
States may not prohibit citizens from contracting insurance out of state for acts performed outside the state.
States may not prohibit citizens from contracting insurance out of state by written communication, even if the property to be insured is within the state.
63 L. Ed. 470; 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2223; 17 Ohio L. Rep. 26; 17 Ohio L. Rep. 149
Case history
Prior
Defendants convicted, E.D. Pa.; motion for new trial denied, 253 F. 212 (E.D. Pa. 1918)
Subsequent
None
Holding
Defendant's criticism of the draft was not protected by the First Amendment, because it created a clear and present danger to the enlistment and recruiting service of the U.S. armed forces during a state of war.
63 L. Ed. 470; 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2223; 17 Ohio L. Rep. 26; 17 Ohio L. Rep. 149
Case history
Prior
Defendants convicted, E.D. Pa.; motion for new trial denied, 253 F. 212 (E.D. Pa. 1918)
Subsequent
None
Holding
Defendant's criticism of the draft was not protected by the First Amendment, because it created a clear and present danger to the enlistment and recruiting service of the U.S. armed forces during a state of war.
In the first case, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, 274 F.Supp. 116, granted writ and the warden appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 396 F.2d 499, affirmed and certiorari was granted. 393 U.S. 922, 89 S.Ct. 258, 21 L.Ed.2d 258. In the second case, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh, ordered the prisoner's release and appeal was taken. The United States Court of Appeals, 397 F.2d 253, affirmed and certiorari was granted. 393 U.S. 932, 89 S.Ct. 292, 21 L.Ed.2d 268.
Subsequent
limited by Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794, 109 S. Ct. 2201, 104 L. Ed. 2d 865 (1989)
Holding
Trial court denied respondents' due process right by imposing a heavier sentence to punish respondent for having his original conviction set aside.
In the first case, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, 274 F.Supp. 116, granted writ and the warden appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 396 F.2d 499, affirmed and certiorari was granted. 393 U.S. 922, 89 S.Ct. 258, 21 L.Ed.2d 258. In the second case, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh, ordered the prisoner's release and appeal was taken. The United States Court of Appeals, 397 F.2d 253, affirmed and certiorari was granted. 393 U.S. 932, 89 S.Ct. 292, 21 L.Ed.2d 268.
Subsequent
limited by Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794, 109 S. Ct. 2201, 104 L. Ed. 2d 865 (1989)
Holding
Trial court denied respondents' due process right by imposing a heavier sentence to punish respondent for having his original conviction set aside.
Motion for preliminary injunction denied, 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008); probable jurisdiction noted, 555 U.S. 1028 (2008).
Holding
The provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act restricting unions, corporations, and profitable organizations from independent political spending and prohibiting the broadcasting of political media funded by them within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violate the First Amendment's protections of freedom of speech. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
Motion for preliminary injunction denied, 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008); probable jurisdiction noted, 555 U.S. 1028 (2008).
Holding
The provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act restricting unions, corporations, and profitable organizations from independent political spending and prohibiting the broadcasting of political media funded by them within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violate the First Amendment's protections of freedom of speech. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
124 S. Ct. 1354; 158 L. Ed. 2d 177; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 1838; 72 U.S.L.W. 4229; 63 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 1077; 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 181
Case history
Prior
Defendant convicted, Thurston County Superior Court, 11-19-99; reversed, 107 Wn. App. 1025 (2001); reversed, conviction reinstated, 54 P.3d 656 (Wash. 2002); certiorari granted, 539 U.S. 914 (2003)
Subsequent
None
Holding
The use at trial of out of court statements made to police by an unavailable witness violated a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him.
124 S. Ct. 1354; 158 L. Ed. 2d 177; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 1838; 72 U.S.L.W. 4229; 63 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 1077; 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 181
Case history
Prior
Defendant convicted, Thurston County Superior Court, 11-19-99; reversed, 107 Wn. App. 1025 (2001); reversed, conviction reinstated, 54 P.3d 656 (Wash. 2002); certiorari granted, 539 U.S. 914 (2003)
Subsequent
None
Holding
The use at trial of out of court statements made to police by an unavailable witness violated a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to apply strict scrutiny in its decision affirming the admissions policy. The decision is vacated, and the case remanded for further consideration.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to apply strict scrutiny in its decision affirming the admissions policy. The decision is vacated, and the case remanded for further consideration.
The Little Tucker Act does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States with respect to damages actions for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Federal Circuit vacated and remanded.
The Little Tucker Act does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States with respect to damages actions for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Federal Circuit vacated and remanded.
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio
Holding
Defendant is bound to make good the loss sustained, such as the moneys the plaintiff had paid out and interest, and any other outlay legitimately attributable to defendant's fraudulent conduct; but this liability did not include the expected fruits of an unrealized speculation.
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio
Holding
Defendant is bound to make good the loss sustained, such as the moneys the plaintiff had paid out and interest, and any other outlay legitimately attributable to defendant's fraudulent conduct; but this liability did not include the expected fruits of an unrealized speculation.
Brown & Williamson is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because it did not engage in predatory pricing in violation of §2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Brown & Williamson is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because it did not engage in predatory pricing in violation of §2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Aesthetic design elements on useful articles like clothing are copyrightable if they can be separately identified as art and exist independently of the useful article.
Aesthetic design elements on useful articles like clothing are copyrightable if they can be separately identified as art and exist independently of the useful article.
On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Holding
The interpretation of a "modification" in the Clean Air Act, in regards to Prevention of Significant Deterioration and New Source Performance Standard, does not require the same regulatory implementation.
On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Holding
The interpretation of a "modification" in the Clean Air Act, in regards to Prevention of Significant Deterioration and New Source Performance Standard, does not require the same regulatory implementation.
Whether President Carter could unilaterally break a defense treaty with Taiwan without Senate approval was a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition. The case was dismissed.
Whether President Carter could unilaterally break a defense treaty with Taiwan without Senate approval was a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition. The case was dismissed.
