Important Cases Flashcards
(43 cards)
Dr. Bonham v. College of Physicians (1610) - Background
Background: Bonham a graduate of Cambridge practiced medicine in London. London College of Physicians had jurisdiction over medical practice in London by charter. LCOP found him insufficient and inexpert in practice. Bonham practiced anyway and was arrested. Brought suit in Court of Common Pleas for false imprisonment claiming they had no jurisdiction over him. Coke also went to Cambridge.
Dr. Bonham v. College of Physicians (1610) - Issues & Holdings
Issue: Was Bonham falsely imprisoned?
Holding: Yes, cannot imprison him without bail until College President commands it. Coke: violation of common law. “one cannot be judge and attorney for any of the parties.” Violation of separation of powers and ideas of justice. Money involved with the case.
Issue: Was the LCOP statute of incorporation void under the common law? Or did Parliament go beyond power?
Holding: Yes, common law controls Parliament’s statutes. Parliament didn’t like the ruling cause it went against their ability to gain power over the king.
Question: can the judiciary override the Parliament?
Coke: When acts of Parliament go against common right and reason the common law will control it and void it. It was repugnant that the LCOP was making themselves judge, jury and attorney. Dr. Bonham states and qualifies these principles.
Dr. Bonham v. College of Physicians (1610) - Overall Results
• Judicial Review sticks in England
• Blackstone stated that: “power of Parliament is absolute and without control.”
• Coke’s precedent lived on in America
TJ to JMAD 1826: Coke influenced the views and ideas of American Constitution, lawyers, whig ideology, 5th & 14th, Due Process of Law, Just Compensation.
U.S. v. Hudson & Goodman (1812) - Background
Hudson and George were charged for secretly voting to give Napoleon Bonaparte $2 million to make a treaty with France. The district court was split on whether they could exercise common law jurisdiction over such a case.
U.S. v. Hudson & Goodman (1812) - Issues & Holdings
Who has jurisdiction to hear this case?
Only the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is specifically outlined in the Constitution. All other courts are dependent upon Congress. “The legislative body must first make an act a crime, affix a punishment to it, and declare the Court that shall have jurisdiction of the offense.” This case effectively closed the door on the lower federal courts’ power to try and convict defendants for common law crimes and mandated that congress specifically define their criminal jurisdiction through legislation.
Stuart v. Laird (1803) - Background
The case regards a circuit judge’s judgment, after the judge’s job had been abolished by the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801. Stuart’s lawyer was Charles Lee, who also represented William Marbury. John Laird asked the Supreme Court to uphold the judge’s ruling, while Stuart’s team argued that (a) only the court that renders a judgment can enforce it and (b) the 1802 repeal of 1801’s Judiciary Act was unconstitutional.
Stuart v. Laird (1803) - Issues & Holdings
SCRT upheld 1802 Judiciary Act, choosing to ignore Life Tenure conflict and concentrated on Congress power to create new inferior Fed. Courts.
Marbury v. Madison (1803) - Background
Jefferson ordered Madison to not deliver judicial appointments. Marbury appealed for a writ of mandamus ordering Madison to execute his duty and deliver the commissions.
Marbury v. Madison (1803) - Issues & Holdings
Were Marbury’s right violated? If so, do the laws of the country to afford him a remedy?
Yes the rights of Marbury were violated and yes he is entitled to a remedy, however, it was decided that the case would be dismissed due to the unconstitutionality of Congress’ Judiciary Act of 1789 altering the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction without amendment.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - Background
The U.S. bank was rechartered. Maryland taxed the U.S. bank branch within their state and the branch president refused to pay the tax.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) - Issues & Holdings
Does Congress have the power to incorporate a national bank? Can Maryland tax an entity of the Nation?
Yes Congress can incorporate a bank under the necessary and proper clause. Maryland is subordinate to the nation and cannot tax the people as a whole under Article VI. “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”
Debs v. U.S. (1919) - Background
Eugene V. Debs was an American labor and political leader and five-time Socialist Party of America candidate for the American Presidency. On June 16, 1918 Debs made an anti-war speech in Canton, Ohio, protesting US involvement in World War I, and he was subsequently arrested under the Espionage Act of 1917. He was convicted and sentenced to serve ten years in prison and disenfranchised for life.
Debs v. U.S. (1919) - Issues & Holdings
Did Deb’s conviction violate 1st Amendment?
Justice Homes (unanimous) SCRT, held: No, affirmed
Abrams v. U.S. (1919) - Background
The defendants were convicted on the basis of two leaflets they printed and threw from windows of a building in New York City. One leaflet, signed “revolutionists”, denounced the sending of American troops to Russia. The second leaflet, written in Yiddish, denounced the war and US efforts to impede the Russian Revolution and advocated the cessation of the production of weapons to be used against Soviet Russia.
Abrams v. U.S. (1919) - Issues & Holdings
Does the Act violate the 1st Amendment?
No, Justice Clarke: if you want to overthrow the US government that is not protected under Constitution.
Writs of Assistance (1761) - Background
o Smuggling was common in colonies, why?
o Because of British trade laws:
• Navigation Acts (1650)
• Molasses Act (1733)
• Sugar Act (1764)
o Writs of Assistance – ordered sheriffs, others to assist custom officers in searching for smugglers.
o They were arbitrary search warrants, transferable, w/ immunity from damages.
o James Otis, Advocate Gen. of Vice Admiralty Court in Boston ordered to argue for the writs.
o Quits and represented those accused in Superior Court of MA.
• Wants to fight “instruments of slavery”
• “A man’s house is his castle;…”
• “An act against the constitution is void.”
• “sacred calls of his country.”
• Rights associated with your property.
• Could destroy property in search with immunity.
Writs of Assistance (1761) - Issues & Holdings
Was the writ unconstitutional, and thus void?
o No, writs renewed.
o But it was a politically important precedent for the revolution.
o Sparked the Revolution and led to state and federal protections (e.g., 4th amendment)
Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) - Background
Background: Farquhar of South Carolina had supplied the State of Georgia goods during the Revolutionary War. Chisholm was the executor for Farquhar and took Georgia to court over the payment in return now that the war was over. Georgia refused to appear in court stating that they were a sovereign state and could not be sued without consent.
Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) - Issues & Holdings
Holding: The court held that Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution abrogated Georgia’s sovereign immunity to be sued without consent and granted federal courts the affirmative power to hear cases between private citizens and States.
(Reason behind the 11th Amendment which superseded the court’s decision)
Barron v. Baltimore (1833) - Background
Background: John Barron, who co-owned a profitable wharf in the Baltimore harbor, sued the mayor of Baltimore for damages, claiming that when the city had diverted the flow of streams while engaging in street construction, it had created mounds of sand and earth near his wharf making the water too shallow for most vessels. The trial court awarded Barron damages of $4,500, but the appellate court reversed the ruling.
Barron v. baltimore (1833) - Issues & Holdings
Issues: Does the U.S. Bill of Rights apply to the States as well?
Holding: The court ruled that the U.S. Bill of RIghts do not apply to the States. They argued that the 9th and 10th Amendments do not explicitly state that it should thus be applied.
(Decision superseded by the 14th Amendment which made the U.S. Bill of Rights applicable to the States.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) - Background
Background: Two men had claim to the Hudson River waterway under different charters. One with the State of New York and the other under a federal coastline act.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) - Issues & Holdings
Issues: What is the scope of Congress’ Commerce Clause? Can the state and national government regulate the same thing?
Holding: When conflict exists between state and federal law, federal law is supreme according to Article VI. Never to a degree that the federal acts but with complete supremacy (plenary).
Texas v. Johnson (1989) - Background
Background: Defendant burned a flag with kerosene, and chanted “America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you” at the Republican National Convention to protest Reagan’s policies. Defendant was charged with “the desecration of a venerated object” under Texas Penal Code. Defendant was sentenced to 1 year in prison and a $2,000 fine. Texas Court of Appeals affirmed, but Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding his actions were symbolic speech protected by the 1st Amendment Texas appeals to U.S. Supreme Court
