Supreme Court Cases, 1800-1880

By 2014birdee
  • Period: to

    Chief Justice John Marshall

    John MarshallJohn Marshall held and important role in establishing the Supreme Court as a center that could overrule congress, encouraging nationalism and lay the foundation for American Constitutional Law. He was a large supporter of judicial review and acted upon that belief by ignoring laws that violated the Constitution.
    Eric Foner pages: 254, 333, 374
    U.S. review text pages: 117-118

  • Silas Talbot v. Hans Fredeerick Seeman

    Talbot v. SeemanMarine Salvage rights in the time of war. A vessel captured from the enemy in time of war is subject to salvage rights even if the vessels owner was not party to the conflict.
    Laws applied: SALVAGE ACT OF 28 JUNE, 1798
    No exact date found
    Not found in text.

  • *William Marbury v. James Madison(secretary of state)

    Marbury v. MadisonSection 13 of the Judiciary Act of 179 is unconstitutional. This declaration formed to concept of Judiciary Review- OCngress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution.
    U.S. Review Text page: 117
    Eric Foner page: 297

  • Hugh Stuart v. John Laird

    Stuart v. laird
    Stuart argued that onthe court that renders a judgement can enforce it and the 1802 repeal od the 1801's Judiciary Act was unconstitutiona; while John Laird called upon the court to uphold the judge's ruling. Stuart Lost.
    Judiciary Act of 1801 (a.k.a the Midnight Judges Act) It reorganized the circuit courts and creating new life time post for federalist judges. Abolited in 1802.

  • George Little v. Barreme

    Little v. BarremeThe courts found that the President of the United States does not have "inherent authority" which allows him to ignor a law passed by Congress. Hte reason for this verdict is the U.S. constituiton doesn't grant this power.

  • Bailiff v. Tipping

    Bailiff v. TippingA citation must accompany a writ of error in order for the court to hear the case.

  • Strawbridge v. Curtiss

    Strawbridge v. CurtissA controversy is not "between citizens of different states," so as to give jurisdiction to the federal courts, unless all the different states from all the persons on the other side.

  • Ex part Bollman

    Ex parte BollmanThe Supreme Court had the power to order that a writ of habeas corpus be issued to release the petitioners from prison, because the Constitution grants that power to federal courts unless Congress suspends it. The petitioners' alleged conspiracy did not rise to the level of treason as defined by the Constitution.

  • Robert Fletcher v. John Peck

    Flecter v. PeckThe Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibited Georgia from voiding contracts for the transfer of land, even though they were secured through illegal bribery. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts affirmed.
    Foner: 297
    Tex:117-118

  • United States v. Hudson and Goodwin

    U.S. v. Hundson and GoodwinBarzillai Hudson and George Goodwin were charge with libel. They were accusd of voting to give napoleon Bonaparte two million dollars to make a treaty with Spain. The trouble with this case what that the Circuit Court was divided on the question of whether they could exercise common law juridiction over such cases.

  • The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon

    Schooner ExchangeThe Schooner Exchange was a vessel owned by John M'Faddon and William Greetham. It was seized by Napoleon Bonaparte and became armed and commissioned as a public vessel of the French government. M'Faddon and Greetham wanted this ship back.
    An allied nation's property remains that nation's property when it comes into an allied nation's territory.

  • Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee

    Fairfax v. Hunter
    The Virginia Court of Appeals was mistaken in denying the validity of the Fairfax land titles, the Virginia Court rejected the U.S. Supreme Court's mandate.

  • *Martin v. Hunter's Lessee

    Martin v. Hunter's LesseeIt was the first case to assert ultimate Supreme Court authority over state courts in matters of federal law. Article Three of the U.S. COnstitution grants the U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction and authority over state courts on matters involving federal law.

  • Laidlaw v. Organ

    Caveat EmptorLaidlaw v. Organ
    Established caveat emptor, which is the property law doctrine. It controls the sale of the real property after the date of closing.

  • Dartmouth College v. Woodward

    Dartmouth College v. Woodward
    The decision settled the nature of public versus private charters and resulted ain the rise of the American business corporation.
    Foner pages: 333
    History text pafes: 118
    Article 1 section 10 declares that no State shall make any law
    infracting on the obligations of contract.

  • Sturges v. Crowninshield

    Sturges v. Crowninshield
    This case focused on state bankruptcy laws. The issued lay with the provision in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. This Article gives Congress the ablity to establish laws of bankrupticies through-out the U.S.

  • McCulloch v. Maryland

    McCulloch v. MarylandThe state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Seconf Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. The constitution don't give congress power to established a bank but it does give the power over taxes, spending and the bank is able to assist the government.

  • Cohens v. Virginia

    Cohens v. Virginia
    The entire Supreme Court asserted its overpower state supreme court in criminal cases when their is evidence that Constitutional rights have been infrenged on.

  • Johnson v. M'Intosh

    Johnson v. M'Intosh
    U.S. Supreme Court decision declared that Pivate citizens could not buy land from Nativ Americans. The land in question belonged to the Johnson's descendants were passed down land that William M'Intosh bought from the government. In reality the parcels of land did not overlap, which the parties knew but they wanted to obtain a ruling anyways.

  • Gibbons v. Ogden

    Gibbons v. Ogden
    Supreme Court of the United States said that the power to regulate interstate commerce was granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the United States.
    Foner: 333
    Text: 118

  • Osborn v. Bank of the United States

    During the Banking Crisis of 1819 banks demanded repayment for loans they had issued based off of credit they did not have. This inturn was a cause of the economic downturn and deflation of the economy. Ohio tried to fix this problem by putting tax on the Bank of the United States. ralph Osborn had to return the money he was orginally permitted to seize from the bank.

  • Ogden v. Saunders

    Ogden v. Sauders
    case that determined the range of bankruptcy law in contrast to a clause of the Coustitution of the United States.

  • American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton

    American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton
    Involved the power of congress to establish a local court in the Florida Territory whose judges lacked life tenure as ordered in Article 3 of the Constitution. This case was later discussed in the Dred Scott case where the holding states that COngress could not ban slavery within a terrirtory.

  • Willson v. Black-Birde Creek Marsh Co.

    Willson v. Black-Birde Creek Marsh Co.
    This case called into question the definition of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. As long as Congress has not exercised its power over commerce in a certain area, a state may regulate that area as long as such regulations do not conflivt with the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

  • Cherokee Nation v. Georgia

    Cherokee Nation v. GeorgiaThe Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction to hear a suit brought by an Indian nation. Indian Nations are not considered foerign states within the ideals of the constitution.
    Foner: 376-377

  • Worcester v. Georgia

    Worcester v. Georgia
    Georgia criminal stature states that non-Indians from being present on Indian lands without a license from the state, was unconstitutional.

  • Barron v. Baltimore

    Barron v. Baltimore
    The Supreme Court decided that the Bill of Rights especially the fifth Amendment are restrictions on the federal government alone. The fifth Amendment's guarantee that government takings of private property for public use require just compensation.

  • Ex parte Madrazzo

    Ex parte Madrazzo
    The court found that the property was not inthe jurisdiction of a court of admiralty or in the possession of private person, the governor not being a private person, but in possession of the state of Georgia and so Madrazo's case was a suit of law or equity and could not stand. no exact date found

  • Wheaton v. Peters

    Wheaton v. PetersThis case adressed congressed power to grant a copyright protection subject to conditions and reject the doctrine of a common law copyright.

  • United States v. Segui

    United States v. SeguiThe governor of Eastern Florida made a grant with the Spanish governemnt in 1814. The grant gave the Spanish government 16 thousand acres of land and promised a title in form in return for the Spanish for services and machinery. The court desided to honor a land grant to the appelee of 16,000 acres.
  • Period: to

    Roger Brooke Taney

    Roger B. Taney
    He is mostly noted for his decision in the Dred Scot v. Standford case. He believe in states' rights but also in the Union. He was a slave holder but he released his slaves.

  • Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge

    Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge
    The massachusetts state legislature's decision to grant a charter to the proprietors of Warren Brig=fge after granting a similar charter to the Charles River Bridge Company did not constitute a violation of the COntract Clause.

  • Amistad

    Amistad 1841
    Case adressing the issue of slaves on the Spaish schoon Amidstad. It was strange because it involved U.S. aswell as international laws. The schooner was taken by slave taken from Africa and sold into slavery.

  • Swift v. Tyson

    Swift v. Tyson
    The supreme court determinded that federal courts hearing cases under the diversity juridiction must apply statutory law of the states when the state legistlature of the state in question had spoken on the issue. This mean that deferal courts could create a federal common law when adressing an issue not specifically adressed by the states legislature.

  • Prigg v. Pennsylvania

    Prigg v. pennsylvania
    Court case that once again changed the role of federal law verus state law. Federal ran supreme again. The Federal Fugitive Slave Act precluded a pennsylvania state law that gave procedural protection to suspected escaped slave and overturned the conviction of Edward Prigg as a result.

  • Passenger Cases

    Passenger CasesA state does not have the right to impose a tax determined by the number of riders of that ship
    No exact date found

  • Luther v. Borden

    Luther v. Borden
    The decision of whether a state has a republican form as gauranteed by the Constitution is a political question. A question that can only be answered by congress and the President.
    No exact date found.

  • Sheldon v. Sill

    Sheldon v. Sill
    Congress doesn't limit the subjects the Supreme Court hear, but congress may ordain, establish and extend the jurisdiction of that court to certain points.

  • Hotchkiss v. Greenwood

    Hotchkiss v. Greenwood
    This was the first time the Court introduced the idea of non-obviousness as patentability requirement in U.S. partent law.
    No exact date found

  • Strader v. Graham

    Stader v. Graham
    The state of three slaves who went from Kentucky to Indiana and Ohia depended on Kentucky law not Ohio. This case seems similar to the Dred Scott case except these slave were lucky enough to escape to Canada.
    no exact date found

  • Cooley v. Board of Wardens

    Cooley v. Board of WardensA Pennsylvania law required all ship entering or leaving Phili. to hire a local pilot was called into question. It was decided that the Commerce Cluase of the Constitution was not violated.

  • * Dred Scott v. Stanford

    A court decision that didn't consider slaves protected by the Constitution and could not be American citizens. This case also stated that Congress had not Constitutional right to band slvaery from federal territories. Also that only citizens could sue in court and since slaves werent citizens they could not sure.
    Foner: 487-488, 492,495,566,624,733
    Tex:189-190

  • Ableman v. Booth

    Ableman v. Booth
    State courts cannot rule against the federal court. For example a state court can not grant an arrested prisoner in federal custody and under U.S. control wiht a writ of habeas corpus.

  • Prize Cases

    [Prize Cases](<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_Cases)' >Prize Cases</a>The Supreme Court's decision to declare a blockade of the Southern ports ordered by President Lincoln constitutional even without a formal war declaration.
  • Period: to

    Chief Justice Salmon Portland Chase

    Salmon P. Chase

  • Ex parte Garland

    Ex parte Garland
    Congress passed a law that require Confederate government members take an loyalty oath be recited by a Federal court officer affirming that the officer has never served in the Confederate governemnt. The result was that congress cannot punish a person for a crime for which the person has been pardoned.

  • Mississippi v. Johnson

    Mississippi v. Johnson
    The state of Mississippi tried to sure president Andrew Johnson for enforcing Reconstruction. Based on the case of Marbury v. Madison the court decided that the President has two kinds of tasks (ministerial and discretionary). Ministerial requires him to follow the duties outlined in the constitution. Discretionary task are optional for the president, which Johnson was acting on so he couldn't be sued.

  • Pervear v. Massachusets

    Pervear v. Massachusetts
    The court ruled that prisoners have no constitutional rights, not even 8th Amendment rights. This was the case that brought about a hands off policy that allowed states to run their prisons without federal interference.

  • Crandall v. Nevada

    Crandall v. Nevada
    A state can't stop a person leaving the state by taxing them.

  • Georgia v. Stanton

    Georgia v. Stanton
    The court has no control over the Reconstruction Acts against the Southern States.
    no exact date found

  • Texas v. White

    Texas v. White
    A state can not actually leave the union so texas never left. Also the treasure bonds sold by texas during the war were invalid and the bondes were therefore still owned by the post-war state.

  • Ex parte McCardle

    Ex parte McCardleCongress has the authority to withdraw appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court at any time.

  • United States v. Kirby

    United States v. Kirby
    All laws must be read as if they contain exceptions to prevent an absurd consequence. Especially convicting a police officer because he arreste a postal worker which interfered and obstructed justice.

  • Ex parte Yerger

    Ex parte Yerger
    Chief Justice Chase decisded that they court had juristiction to hear the case of habeas sorpus and the power to direct its writ at a milirtary officer.

  • Paul v. Virginia

    Paul v. Virginia
    Said that a corporation is not a citizen within the means of the clause stating Privileges and Immunities Clause.

  • Hepburn v. Griswold

    Hepburn v. Griswold
    Certain parts of the legal tender acts to be unconstitutional. This included the issuance of greenbacks, which he was responsible for overseeing during his tenure as Secretary of the Treasury.

  • Baker v. Morton

    Baker v. Morton
    This case was vital to establishing homesteaders rights and ensuring the future growth of Omaha would benefit everyone.

  • Slaughter- House Cases

    Slaughter- House Cases
    There was an outbreak of cholera among the population because over 300,00 animals per year. Animal entail dung, blood and urine that becameGrand slaughterh part of the drinking water and infected it. Ruled that the 14th amendment was to protect former slaves an so could not be broadly applied.

  • United State v. Klein

    U.S. v. Klein
    President Lincoln issued a proclamation giving a pardon to a person who had supported or fought for the Confederates. He offered the restoration of property rights, and subjected them to only taking an oath of allegiance. Congress said that owners of property seized during the war would receive the proceeds from the sale of the property.

  • Taylor v. Taintor

    Taylor v. TaintorThis case involved bail for a criminal wanted in multiple states for seperate crimes. The convict was in custody in another state so he was not able to attend his trial and his bail bond was cashed.
    Bail will be exonerated where the performance of the condition is rendered impossible by the act of God, the act of the obligee, or the act of the law.

  • Bradwell v. Illinois

    Bradwell v. Illinois
    Illinois denied women law licenses because the right to practice was not given by the 14th amendment. This is also well known because it challenged sex discrimination.
  • Period: to

    Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite

    Morrison Waite

  • Minor v. Happersett

    Minor v. Happersett
    Women's suffrage movement accused Missouri of infringement of the 14th Amendment because they refused to allow her to register to vote.

  • United States v. Cruikshank

    U.S. v. Cruikshank
    Descision involving U.S. constitutional law, the Bill of Rights effect on the state governments according to the 14th Amendment.

  • Munn v. Illinois

    Munn v. IllinoisMunn case allowed states to regulate certain bursinesses within their borders, including railraods, and is a milestone in the growth of federal government regulation.

  • Totten v. U.S.

    Totten v. U.S.The courts said that an oral contract between spy and President lincoln was unenforceable. Courts can't rule of espionage cases because it might reviel private details.

  • Pennoyer v. Neff

    Pennoyer v. Neff
    Supreme Court decided that a court can have personal jurisdiction over a party if they are served with process while physically present within the state.

  • CIty of Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Company

    City of Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co.Public use of an invention for the purpose of testing and experimenting with it does not create a bar to patentability.

  • Reynolds v. United States

    Reynolds v. United States
    Religion was not a defense against criminal indictment. George Reynolds was a member of a church and was charged with bigamy under the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act after marrying Amelia Jane Scholfield while still married to Mary Ann Tuddenham in Utah Territory.

  • Wilkerson v. Utah

    Wilkerson v. UtahCourt states that execution by firing squad was not cruel and unusual punishment due to the 8th Amendment.

  • Trade-Mark Cases

    Trade-Mark CasesA set of three cases combined into one for the Supreme Court. Copy right clause didn't give the control to congress to interfere with trademarks. This led to Conress passing the Trade Mark Act of 1881.
    No exact date.
    1. U.S. v. Steffens 2.U.S. v. Wittemean 3. U.S. v. Johnson

  • Strauder v. West Virginia

    Strauder v. West Virginia
    Case about radical discrimination. West Virginia excluded African-Americans from juries, so when a black man was convicted of murder he appealed his conviction. He stated that he was given equal protection gaurenteed in the Fourteenth Admendment.

  • Baker v. Selden

    Baker v. Selden
    Copyright protection by changing an original idea into an different form the expression or manifestation of that idea.

  • Springer v. Untied States

    Revenue Act of 1864Springer v. United States
    U.S. Court upheld the Federal income tax under Revenue Act of 1864. This Act imposed the tax on "the gains, profits and income of every person living in the United States.