Category:1896 in United States case law
Pages in category "1896 in United States case law"
The following 16 pages are in this category, out of 16 total, this list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).
The following 16 pages are in this category, out of 16 total, this list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).
1. Allen v. United States (1896) – The Court affirmed Allens murder conviction, after having vacated his two prior convictions for the same crime. Such an instruction became known as an Allen charge and is given when, after deliberation, because it is used to dislodge jurors from entrenched positions, the Allen charge is sometimes referred to as the dynamite charge or the hammer charge. Allen is based upon the Supreme Courts supervisory power over the federal courts, thus, it is not binding on state courts. Approximately half of US states prohibit Allen charges on state law grounds, Allens three trials had been presided over by Judge Isaac Parker of the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. These instructions were taken literally from a charge in a case which was approved of by the supreme court of Massachusetts. While, undoubtedly, the verdict of the jury should represent the opinion of each individual juror, the very object of the jury system is to secure unanimity by a comparison of views, and by arguments among the jurors themselves. There was no error in these instructions, the trial has been expensive in time, effort, money and emotional strain to both the defense and the prosecution. If you should fail to agree upon a verdict, the case will be left open and you must also remember that if the evidence in the case fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the Defendant should have your unanimous verdict of Not Guilty. You may be as leisurely in your deliberations as the occasion may require, Allen charges have been rejected, in whole or in part, by at least twenty-three states. Twenty-two states have rejected the charge by judicial decision, Black direction, Black v The Queen,179 CLR44 Mark M. Lanier & Cloud Miller III, The Allen Charge, Expedient Justice or Coercion
2. Ball v. United States – Ball v. United States,163 U. S.662, is one of the earliest United States Supreme Court case interpreting the Double Jeopardy Clause. In 1889, defendants Millard Fillmore Ball, John C, Ball, and Robert E. Boutwell were indicted for the murder of William T. Box. The jury acquitted Millard Fillmore Ball and convicted John C. Ball, the convicted defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed their convictions in 1891, holding that the indictment was insufficient. All three were indicted for the murder a second time, the trial court rejected all three pleas, and all three were convicted the second time. On the second appeal, the Supreme Court reversed Millard Fillmore Balls conviction, the Court rejected John C. Ball and Robert E. Boutwells double jeopardy arguments, holding that they could be retried after their prior convictions were reversed on appeal. The court also rejected their remaining arguments, list of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 163 Text of the opinion at Findlaw
3. Courvoisier v. Raymond – 113, was a case decided by the Colorado Supreme Court that affirmed the use of a reasonableness standard when determining the validity of a mistaken self-defense. Courvoisier was a store owner, and he was awoken in the middle of the night when robbers tried to break into his store. He retrieved his revolver and chased them outside, Raymond was a Denver police officer who began to approach Courvoisier, and Courvoisier shot him. Courvoisier said that he mistook Raymond for a robber, but the court found for Raymond. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the decision for Raymond because of faulty jury instructions in the trial court, the trial court failed to give the instruction that Courvoisier should not be held liable if his mistake that Raymond was a robber was reasonable given the circumstances
4. Geer v. Connecticut – Geer v. Connecticut,161 U. S.519, was a United States Supreme Court decision, which dealt with the transportation of wild fowl over state lines. Geer held that the states owned the wild animals within their borders and could strictly regulate their management and harvest. According to the Geer Court, “the right to preserve game flows from the existence in the State of a police power. ”The Geer decision supported the view that the states owned all resident wildlife. The Wilderness Act and Fish Stocking, An Overview of Legislation, Judicial Interpretation, and Agency Implementation
5. Plessy v. Ferguson – Plessy v. Ferguson,163 US537 was a landmark constitutional law case of the US Supreme Court. It upheld state racial segregation laws for public facilities under the doctrine of separate, the decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. Separate but equal remained standard doctrine in U. S. law until its repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education. In 1890, the state of Louisiana passed a law that required separate accommodations for blacks and whites on railroads, concerned, a group of prominent black, creole, and white New Orleans residents formed the Comité des Citoyens dedicated to repeal the law or fight its effect. They persuaded Homer Plessy, a man of mixed race, to participate in an orchestrated test case, Plessy was born a free man and was an octoroon. However, under Louisiana law, he was classified as black, on June 7,1892, Plessy bought a first-class ticket at the Press Street Depot and boarded a whites only car of the East Louisiana Railroad in New Orleans, Louisiana, bound for Covington, Louisiana. After Plessy took a seat in the railway car, he was asked to vacate it. Plessy refused and was arrested immediately by the detective, as planned, the train was stopped, and Plessy was taken off the train at Press and Royal streets. Plessy was remanded for trial in Orleans Parish, Plessy was convicted and sentenced to pay a $25 fine. Plessy immediately sought a writ of prohibition, the Committee of Citizens took Plessys appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, where he again found an unreceptive ear, as the state Supreme Court upheld Judge Fergusons ruling. The Massachusetts Supreme Court had ruled as early as 1849 that segregated schools were constitutional, in answering the charge that segregation perpetuated race prejudice, the Massachusetts court stated, This prejudice, if it exists, is not created by law and cannot be changed by law. Similarly, in commenting on a Pennsylvania law mandating separate railcars for different races the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated and it is simply to say that following the order of Divine Providence, human authority ought not to compel these widely separated races to intermix. Undaunted, the Committee appealed to the United States Supreme Court in 1896, two legal briefs were submitted on Plessys behalf. One was signed by Albion W. Tourgée and James C. Walker, oral arguments were held before the Supreme Court on April 13,1896. Tourgée and Phillips appeared in the courtroom to speak on behalf of Plessy, Tourgée argued that the reputation of being a black man was property, which, by the law, implied the inferiority of African Americans as compared to whites. The state legal brief was prepared by Attorney General Milton Joseph Cunningham of Natchitoches, earlier, Cunningham had fought to restore white supremacy during Reconstruction. Justice Edward Douglass White of Louisiana was one of the majority, in the seven-to-one decision handed down on May 18,1896, the Court rejected Plessys arguments based on the Fourteenth Amendment, seeing no way in which the Louisiana statute violated it. In addition, the rejected the view that the Louisiana law implied any inferiority of blacks
6. Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy – It was the first such litigation by an indigenous plaintiff since Fellows v. Blacksmith and its companion case of New York ex rel. The U. S. Supreme Court declined to review the merits of lower court ruling because of the adequate, according to OToole and Tureen, Christy is an important case in that it revived the concept that states had special powers to deal with Indian tribes within their borders. Moreover, the New York courts interpretation of the Nonintercourse Act is no longer good law, modern federal courts hold that only Congress can ratify a conveyance of aboriginal title, and only with a clear statement, rather than implicitly. By a December 16,1786 interstate compact, the states agreed that Massachusetts would retain the rights and the pre-emption rights. After the adoption of the United States Constitution in 1787, the government ratified their compact. Three private individuals—Robert Troup, Thomas L. Ogden, and Benjamin W. Rogers—obtained the proprietary and they executed a treaty of conveyance with the Seneca on August 31,1826, purchasing 87,000 acres for $48,216. Massachusetts approved the conveyance, but the United States Senate was never consulted and never ratified the treaty, as required for treaties with Native American nations. In 1827, the money was deposited in Ontario Bank in Canandaigua, New York, and in 1855 it was paid to the United States treasury, which began remitting the interest to the Seneca Nation. The Seneca Nation could not have brought the lawsuit until 1845, the Seneca filed a petition with the Bureau of Indian Affairs on January 5,1881, requesting restoration and possession of certain lands related to the Phelps and Gorham Purchase. This petition was ignored by the BIA, the Seneca hired the lawyer James Clark Strong to represent them, a prominent lawyer and civic-minded resident of Buffalo. Strong was a lieutenant colonel in the Union army. He had a permanent limp from his wounds in the American Civil War, at the law practice of his brother, John C. Strong, he had represented the Cayuga in a claim against New York state. The Seneca brought suit in the Circuit Court of Erie County, the Seneca requested the ejectment of Harrison B. Christy from 100 acres of land in the town of Brant, New York and these lands were formerly part of the Cattaraugus Indian Reservation, as established by the New York Treaty of Big Tree. The Seneca contended that the purchase was invalid because the treaty was not approved by the Senate, as required by the Constitution, the General Term of the Fifth Department of the New York Supreme Court heard the intermediate appeal. Bradley J. writing for himself and Dwight J. J. affirmed, the court considered whether the Indians had properly surrendered the land and whether the consideration had been paid. The quantity of land covered by the treaty of conveyance was large, the court cited Johnson v. MIntosh for the proposition that, he title of the Indians was possessory, and embraced the right of occupancy only
7. Talton v. Mayes – Talton v. Mayes was brought before the United States Supreme Court in 1896 by Bob Talton, a Cherokee Indian convicted of the murder of a fellow Cherokee. He was sentenced to death by hanging after a trial took place between May and December 1892. The appellant appealed the decision on the basis that the court had violated his rights by being in contradiction to the law. The US Constitution and, by the end of his trial, the first regular term of the courts named commenced on the second Monday in May. There was no express repeal of the provisions of the prior law, under the terms of the act of November 28,1892, a grand jury could not have been impaneled before the term beginning on the second Monday of May 1893. The indictment in question was returned in December 1892, by a jury consisting of five persons. The appellant argued that the decision should be thrown out because it violated either the Fifth or the Fourteenth amendment. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, the part of the Fourteenth Amendment that was of consequence in Talton v. Mayes is the very first part. Talton v. Mayes took place during an era known as the Assimilation Era, most Native Americans were not considered citizens of the United States until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, though. The decision of the Cherokee court was upheld with an almost unanimous vote, the only person who dissented was Justice Harlan. The case had numerous precedents, particularly Barron v. Baltimore, since that case was adjudicated in 1833, it had been a settled fact that the Fifth Amendment was a limitation on the powers of the federal government only, which were created by the Constitution. The Court stated that as the powers of local self-government enjoyed by the Cherokee Nation existed prior to the constitution, therefore, as to most, but not all, provisions of the Bill of Rights, Barron and its progeny have been circumvented, if not actually overruled. Andrew Red Bird was arraigned on the charge of rape by the Rosebud Sioux Tribe Court and he was then sent on the District Court in South Dakota, and federal authorities were finally notified nearly a month after his arrest. One of the first things that the Court set out to determine was whether the tribe had the power to act in this situation, even though this appeals court case took place in 2001 and 2002, Talton v. Mayes. United States v. Wheeler included much the same storyline as US v. Andrew Red Bird, Wheeler was also arraigned for rape, and Talton v. Mayes was again mentioned as the Justices tried to determine what the power of the local tribal government was. Talton v. Mayes also had an effect on legislation, most notably the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, while Talton v. Mayes did uphold the fact that the tribes were sovereign in their purely local affairs, it also said that while they were possessed of. Attributes of local government, when exercising their tribal functions, all such rights are subject to the supreme legislative authority of the United States. ”And that Congress has plenary authority to limit. Congress used that power to create the Indian Civil Rights Act, list of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 163 FindLaw Supreme Court, Talton v. Mayes
8. United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Co. – United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry. Co. was a case to prevent trolley operations on the Gettysburg Battlefield. The dispute began in August 1891 when the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Associations board approved attorney Samuel Swopes motion to deny trolley right-of-way along GBMA roads. The GBMA owned less than 600 acres of the much larger area. Some owners rented land for camping, sold souvenirs/refreshments, and by 1894 required top dollar prices for real estate purchases, similarly, the original battlefield roads had fallen into disrepair after the GBMA funds had become nearly exhausted by late 1882. Federal acquisition of land that would become the 1895 Gettysburg National Military Park began on June 2,1893, by July 1893, GPC commissioner John B. Bachelder reported to the Secretary of War about battlefield railbed construction, Trolley right-of-way over the private 900 sq ft 72nd Pennsylvania Infantry Monument tract at The Angle was denied by June 13,1893, and the route was changed to instead use the Emmitsburg Road. Despite a lack of funds halted construction in August 1893. Also despite the lawsuit, a new powerhouse was built to replace the original in the borough that had burnt down by January 22,1895. Also during the suit, the railway company became insolvent. Likewise, the US District Attorney of a strip of 7.02 acres of land on May 3,1894, and the trolley company responded with a bill in equity to stop the US eminent domain acquisition c. The US motion to stop construction was dismissed c. Judge Dallas swore in the jury of Adams County residents on June 29,1894, on November 3,1894, the jury identified $30,000 as the measure of damage that would be done the Trolley by the proposed change. Both parties appealed the amount as too high/low, and the company agreed on November 13 to move tracks from the vicinity of Devils Den. The US attorney Ellery P. Ingham filed a petition for condemning a second tract in January 1895. The 1896 reversal by the Supreme Court of the United States ruled historic preservation seems to be a public use, Tipton tracts of 14.2 acres on December 31,1901. In 1908, Borough of Gettysburg vs. Gettysburg Transit Co. required trolley payment of car tax assessed after the failed to perform agreed maintenance of borough streets. In 1909, C. Taylor Leland vs, the Gettysburg Transit Company ordered a trustees auction in the foreclosure of the 1898 mortgage, and an injury lawsuit was initiated for trolley cars colliding on August 15 near Devils Den. Trolley operations ended in November 1916 when the railway had become obsolete with disrepair, congressional funding for the seizure failed in an attempted amendment on February 26,1917. After annual trolley operations on the battlefield hadnt commenced in the spring, instead of paying damages to the trolley company, the funds paid for removing the tracks and acquiring the associated landowners tracts
9. Vegelahn v. Guntner – 92 is a United States labor law decision from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. It is noted for its famous dissent, written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, the union had picketed in front of the employers business with the object of persuading current employees and job applicants to not enter the building. The union also picketed to pressure workers to break employment contracts with the company, the objective was to force higher wages. In this era employers frequently resorted to state and federal courts to get restraining orders and injunctions to stop picketing, strikes, the court ruled that the union was guilty of an intentional tort. Justice Holmes disagreed, equating the use of force by workers to the corporate use of force to compete. This was one of the very first occasions when any judge of prominence had made such a declaration, the Vegelahn case was decided in 1896, when immigration was steadily increasing and union members were also increasing. The public had witnessed violent and far-flung labor unrest, with the Pullman Strike and it would be another twenty-five years before the law would catch up to Holmess dissent, with the passage of the federal Anti-Injunction Act