Today in Supreme Court History: February 2

Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (decided February 2, 1819): state attempt to change existing charter of college to turn it into a public institution violated Contracts Clause; corporate entities are entitled to Clause protection

Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531 (decided February 2, 1970): I did my law review article on the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees the right to a jury trial in a civil case in actions at law (but not equity).  Stupidly, one has to look at what the (common law) “law” vs. “equity” distinction was in 1791 (when the Bill of Rights went into effect) to see whether there is a right to a jury trial today.  Here, a stockholder’s derivative suit (traditionally equity) is held to be an action at law because its allegation of waste by the directors would be an action at law if brought by the corporation itself against the directors.  (?)  Footnote 4, adding to the analysis

“the practical abilities and limitations of juries”, hasn’t gotten any traction; courts continue to allow juries to hear complicated “actions at law” they don’t understand.  (Talking to jurors after verdict in cases I’ve tried, I see that sometimes they don’t even understand simple cases, and fixate on irrelevant trivia.)

Note: After thinking about it for 35 years, I suddenly realized 1) the importance of the Seventh Amendment and 2) why it hasn’t been (or should not be) “incorporated” via the Fourteenth Amendment so as to apply to the states.  1) They were setting up a federal court system and they didn’t want them acting differently from the state courts, as to the common law protections of the right to a jury and appellate review.  2)  If the point of the 7A was to make federal courts like state courts, then “applying” it to the states is circular; it would be like changing an original because it doesn’t match the copy.  Also, state courts, like the English tradition they were inheriting, are always evolving, so going back to 1791 for guidance is silly.  To construe the 7A, one should look at how state courts act now.

Brock v. North Carolina, 344 U.S. 424 (decided February 2, 1953): after mistrial because of refusal of two (prosecution) witnesses to testify, second trial on same offense did not violate Double Jeopardy (overruled by Benton v. Maryland, 1969)

Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (decided February 2, 1948): Officer smelled opium smoke, knocked, she opened the door, and they arrested her.  The Court holds that a warrant (which they point out would have been granted) was required.  (There’s a “plain view” doctrine, but apparently no “plain smell” doctrine.)

Louisiana v. Mississippi, 282 U.S. 458 (decided February 2, 1931): Original jurisdiction case dealing with the Mississippi River changing course over the years; once again we learn that “accretion” (gradual erosion or addition) can change a boundary, but “avulsion” (land looped by river which then gets cut off from the mainland) does not.  I learned another word, “chute”, the new stream that cuts off the loop and straightens the course of the river, often eventually becoming the main course.

Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hillmon, 188 U.S. 208 (decided February 2, 1903): The last gasp of this important case (see May 16) which dragged on for 24 years; here the Court sends the case back for a seventh trial, vacating a verdict based on an improperly introduced affidavit.  By this time it was just the insurance companies fighting each other; they then settled.