Dred Scott v. Sandford
Dred Scott v. Sandford,60 U. S.393, also known simply as the Dred Scott case, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on US labor law and constitutional law. Dred Scott, an man of the negro African race who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B, Taney, the court denied Scotts request. The decision was only the time that the Supreme Court had ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional. Although Taney hoped that his ruling would finally settle the slavery question, many contemporary lawyers, and most modern legal scholars, consider the ruling regarding slavery in the territories to be dictum, not binding precedent. The decision proved to be an indirect catalyst for the American Civil War and it was functionally superseded by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1868, which gave African Americans full citizenship. The Supreme Courts decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford is unanimously denounced by scholars, bernard Schwartz says it stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions—Chief Justice C. E. Hughes called it the Courts greatest self-inflicted wound. Junius P. Rodriguez says it is condemned as the U. S. Supreme Courts worst decision. Historian David Thomas Konig says it was unquestionably, our courts worst decision ever, Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia in 1795. Little is known of his early years and his owner, Peter Blow, moved to Alabama in 1818, taking his six slaves along to work a farm near Huntsville. In 1830, Blow gave up farming and settled in St. Louis, Missouri, after purchasing Scott, Emerson took him to Fort Armstrong, which was located in Illinois. A free state, Illinois had been free as a territory under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, in 1836, Emerson moved with Scott from Illinois to Fort Snelling, which was located in the Wisconsin territory in what would become the state of Minnesota. Slavery in the Wisconsin Territory was prohibited by the United States Congress under the Missouri Compromise, during his stay at Fort Snelling, Scott married Harriet Robinson in a civil ceremony by Harriets owner, Major Lawrence Taliaferro, a justice of the peace who was also an Indian agent. The ceremony would have been unnecessary if Dred Scott were a slave, in 1837, the Army ordered Emerson to Jefferson Barracks Military Post, south of St. Louis, Missouri. Emerson left Scott and his wife at Fort Snelling, where he leased their services out for profit, before the end of the year, the Army reassigned Emerson to Fort Jesup in Louisiana, where Emerson married Eliza Irene Sanford in February,1838. Emerson sent for Scott and Harriet, who proceeded to Louisiana to serve their master, while en route to Louisiana, Scotts daughter Eliza was born on a steamboat underway along the Mississippi River between Illinois and what would become Iowa. Because Eliza was born in free territory, she was born as a free person under both federal and state laws. Upon entering Louisiana, the Scotts could have sued for their freedom and this had been the holding in Louisiana state courts for more than 20 years
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.550 U. S.618, is an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Employers cannot be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more. Justice Alito held for the majority that each paycheck received did not constitute a discrete discriminatory act. Ledbetters claim of the “paycheck accrual rule” was rejected, the decision did not prevent plaintiffs from suing under other laws, like the Equal Pay Act, which has a three-year deadline for most sex discrimination claims, or 42 U. S. C. 1981, which has a deadline for suing over race discrimination. This was a case of statutory rather than interpretation, explaining the meaning of a law. In rejecting Ledbetters appeal, the Supreme Court said that she could have, the Court did leave open the possibility that a plaintiff could sue beyond the 180-day period if she did not, and could not, have discovered the discrimination earlier. The effect of the Courts holding was reversed by the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009, in 1979 Lilly Ledbetter, the plaintiff, began work at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in its Gadsden, Alabama location, a union plant. She started with the pay as male employees, but by retirement. During her years at the factory as a worker, raises were given. From 1979-1981 Ledbetter received a series of evaluations, which she later claimed were discriminatory. Although her subsequent evaluations were good, in part as a result of those early negative evaluations, all merit increases had to be substantiated by a formal evaluation. In March 1998, Ledbetter inquired into the possible sexual discrimination of the Goodyear Tire Company, in July she filed formal charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In November 1998, after retirement, Ledbetter sued claiming pay discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court did not rule on whether this was discrimination, a charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. The District Court found in favor of Goodyear on the Equal Pay Act claim, the court allowed the Title VII and other claims to proceed to trial. Ledbetter claimed that she had been evaluated unfairly because of her sex, Goodyear claimed that their evaluations were non-discriminatory and focused only on worker competence. The jury found for Ledbetter and awarded back pay and damages, Goodyear appealed, arguing that all claims to damages before September 26,1997 were void due to the statute of limitations placed on discrimination claims
Tyler v. Tuel
It was the first published Supreme Court decision on patent law. Like other Supreme Court patent cases prior to Evans v. Eaton, however, it did not deal with patent law. On February 20,1800, the Vermont inventor Benjamin Tyler obtained a patent on a new type of tub wheel, or horizontal water wheel, Tyler later became better known for his second patent on this basic concept, issued in 1804. Due to the later Patent Office fire, official records of these no longer survive. However, the invention was highly influential and anticipated many features of later turbines. Tyler assigned his right and interest in the 1800 patent to others for $6,000, but reserved to himself the right of use and sale within Chittenden, Addison, Rutland, and Windham counties in Vermont. Tylers assignees brought suit against the defendant Tuel in the District of Vermont for infringing the 1800 patent, the district judges were divided on whether to grant the motion or not, and therefore the question went to the Supreme Court on a certificate of division. As was common in the patent jurisprudence of the time, the court applied principles of property law to the issue, under section 4 of the Patent Act of 1793, an assignee could bring suit against an infringer but a licensee could not. Under the common law, an assignment only existed if the entire right, Tyler has been cited in fewer than a dozen cases since it was written. The Tyler rule was abrogated by the Patent Act of 1836, in consequence, Tyler has seldom been cited since the 1830s, except in historical reviews. In 1868, the Supreme Court noted Tylers obsolescence in Moore v. Marsh, the 1836 act, however, only affected geographically divided interests. Under the Tyler rule, an assignee of a part interest could not bring suit in the assignees own name. Justice Story clarified the Tyler rule in a court opinion in Whittemore v. Cutter