top of page
Search

Today in Supreme Court History: December 9

  • Writer: captcrisis
    captcrisis
  • 12 minutes ago
  • 1 min read

MacMath v. United States, 248 U.S. 151 (decided December 9, 1918): clerk employed as “acting U.S. weigher” at collection port not entitled to $2,500 statutory salary assigned to weighers (collection ports were notoriously a gold mine of booty, but I suppose not for lowly weighers, “acting” or otherwise)


Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40 (decided December 9, 2014): under Fed. R. Evid. 606(b), juror cannot testify, and court cannot receive affidavit, as to statements during deliberations (here, as to bias) (exceptions: jury considered extraneous prejudicial information; was subjected to outside influence; or foreman made a mistake on the verdict form)


Virginia v. Maryland, 540 U.S. 56 (decided December 9, 2003): What to do about the Potomac River?  Charles I, as a favor to his friend Lord Baltimore, had set the Maryland border on the Virginia side of the river, instead of in the middle or along the thalweg; this decision overruled Charles and said Maryland couldn’t interfere with Virginia’s use of the river, such as drawing water from it for drinking.  (The Mount Vernon Conference of 1785, a precursor to the Constitutional Convention, had made the same decision, but it no longer had legal force.)

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Today in Supreme Court History: December 8

Chew Heong v. United States , 112 U.S. 536 (decided December 8, 1884): Chinese Exclusion Act (requiring certificate for reentry) did not apply to those who were already in the country, left then retur

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: December 7

Campbell v. Holt , 115 U.S. 620 (decided December 7, 1885): new Texas constitution (went into effect after Texas was readmitted into the Union) validly abolished statute of limitations as to suit for

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: December 6

Palko v. Connecticut , 302 U.S. 319 (decided December 6, 1937): Fifth Amendment’s prohibition of double jeopardy did not apply to the states (upholding Connecticut statute allowing prosecution to appe

 
 
 

Comments


Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page