Today in Supreme Court History: February 28 (and 29!)

Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (decided February 28, 1823): Why do law professors like to play with the heads of 1L’s?  In Property Law, instead of starting the course with some simple cases illustrating basic principles, they confuse new law students with this mishmash involving purchase of land from an Indian tribe, the granting of a federal land patent to someone else, the “doctrine of discovery”, “aboriginal title” . . . and almost all the opinion is dicta where they’re forced to listen to Marshall expound on the Rights of Whites by Conquest.  There is no possible way this case helps them understand real life property law.  (Another torturer of students in their first week of law school was Farnsworth, who decided to start his Contracts casebook with Laredo Hides v. H & H Meat Products, where the student is forced to learn a complicated formula for damages -- this is, mind you, after a contract is formed, after it’s broken, and after it’s litigated on liability.  “In medias res” might be a good trick to use in fiction, but in teaching a course it’s poor, poor, poor.)  As for the holding, it’s not worth mentioning because it didn’t pertain to the actual facts.  Law students would be better off if they could flush all memory of this case from their brains.

Cook v. Garlick, 531 U.S. 510 (decided February 28, 2001): state could not identify on the ballot those candidates for Congress who failed to support term limits (which BTW was like inviting couch potatoes to an exercise class; voters who support term limits by definition are too lazy to drag their asses to the polls to vote the rascals out)

Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (decided February 28, 2011): hearsay statement by police as to mortally wounded man’s identification of who shot him did not violate Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause; purpose of “emergency” interrogation was to find the armed shooter (he died in hospital a few hours later)

Texaco, Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U.S. 1 (decided February 28, 2006): joint venture’s decision to sell separately branded gasoline at same price was not illegal horizontal price fixing (the “joint venture” was between Texaco and Shell Oil, who agreed to sell “Texaco” and “Shell” gas at same price -- sounds fishy, but had been approved by the FTC)

Delaware v. Pennsylvania, 598 U.S. 115 (decided February 28, 2023): other states successfully sue to prevent Delaware from hogging up abandoned MoneyGram orders; they go not to MoneyGram’s state of incorporation (Delaware, of course) but to states where they were purchased

Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (decided February 28, 1990): police entering with a warrant and arresting armed robbery suspect can conduct “protective sweep” of premises for individuals who might pose danger (during sweep police found outfit matching description of what man was wearing at time of robbery)

February 29

What follows is every case decided on February 29, 1892.  This is in honor of my wife, born on February 29.  Page numbers are to 143 U.S.

Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Hanford, p. 187: buyer of mortgaged property is first in line for payment of mortgage and original mortgagor not liable if buyer gets extension of time

New Orleans City & Lake R.R. Co. v. New Orleans, p. 192: City charter giving tax break to railroad company did not prevent it from then adding different tax

Waterman v. Alden, p. 196: Will provision stating that brother still owed estate (all other intrafamilial debts being forgiven) did not apply to debts incurred after date of Will

In re Woods, p. 202: personal injury action where only issue was collateral estoppel effect of dismissal at close of plaintiff’s case was not important enough to grant cert

Horner v. United States, p. 207: prisoner properly moved from New York to Illinois for trial because that was where his crime of “delivering” gambling material through the mails was committed as defined by statute (he had mailed it in New York but addressed it to a person in Illinois)

Lawrence v. Nelson, p. 215: claimant who had obtained judgment against administrator in another state not bound by in-state requirement that claims against estate be filed within two years

Hammond v. Hopkins, p. 224: certificates of two long-dead justices of the peace admissible and outweighed testimony of wife that she never heard of property deed nor signed it (also at issue was a Will touchingly leaving “my little slave boy Frank to my daughter Victoria Hopkins”)

Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co. v. Beat 'Em All Barbed Wire Co., p. 275: competing patents for “improved” barbed wire (diagrams are in the opinion); issues are whether one was devoid for “want of novelty”, proof needed to show that later-patented product was in use first, and whether date of application or date of patent is relevant (it’s the date of application)

Michigan Ins. Bank v. Eldred, p. 293: bank’s change of status during lawsuit from state bank to national bank did not change the issues

Ludeling v. Chaffe, p. 301: assignee in bankruptcy has rights superior to pre-bankruptcy creditor

Horn Silver Mining Co. v. People, p. 306: New York tax on all capital stock of corporations doing business in the state even including out of state stock does not violate Dormant Commerce Clause

Chandler v. Pomeroy, p. 318: enforcing agreement between all testator’s children to divvy up estate equally and to cancel the Will “to get the property out of the hands of the lawyers” (suit brought by executor named in Will)

Chicago & Grand Trunk R.R. Co. v. Wellman, p. 339: error to instruct jury that statute setting railroad rates was unconstitutional (effect of which was to necessarily hold that rates testified to were unreasonable)

Briggs v. United States, p. 346: allowing suit by planter for cotton seized by Union Army during Civil War to go forward; suit was allowed by the Captured and Abandoned Property Act of 1863, cotton was bought in transaction between private parties without C.S.A. involvement, and United States could not use Statute of Frauds as a defense (this is an 1892 ruling because claim couldn’t be brought until court of claims was given jurisdiction in 1888)

Nebraska v. Iowa, p. 359: in original jurisdiction case, awarding some land to Nebraska and some to Iowa because in some places Missouri River changed due to accretion (change in boundary) but above Omaha by avulsion (no change)

Winona & St. Peter R.R. Co. v. Plainview, p. 371: out-of-state parties declared to be bona fide purchasers by federal court based on state court decision holding bonds valid did not lose their rights when state appellate court reversed

Iron Silver Mining Co. v. Mike & Starr Gold & Silver Mining Co., p. 430: “placer claim” (right to mine specific public land) does not apply to vein or lode already known to exist there (same: Sullivan v. Iron Silver Mining Co., p. 431

Schwab v. Berggren, p. 442: one sentenced to death does not have to be present when appellate court affirms judgment (same: Fielden v. Illinois, p. 452)

Holy Trinity Church v. United States, p. 457: Anglican pastor was not unskilled worker and therefore not subject to immigration restriction (“cheap, unskilled labor” -- i.e., like my grandparents -- “was making the trouble, the influx of which Congress sought to prevent”)

The Sylvia Handy, p. 513: Court cannot disturb finding that Russian “promiscuous” killing of seals, so as to disturb their mating grounds, took place in Alaska waters (and therefore ship could be seized)

Budd v. People, p. 517: New York statute regulating loading of grain elevators did not impact interstate commerce

Hoyt v. Latham, p. 553: heirs to “very large estate” ratified unauthorized grant of land by their inaction

United States v. Texas, p. 621: border dispute under Court’s original jurisdiction is equitable (not at law) claim (i.e., Court can fashion whatever remedy it wants)

Field v. Clark, p. 649: Court cannot look to journals, etc. of Congress to determine if proper procedures were followed; properly authenticated bill sent to President is conclusive proof that they were (law was to allow President to retaliate against foreign powers by restricting importation of “sugar, molasses, tea and hides”)

United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1: journal and minutes of House of Representatives is conclusive proof as to whether quorum was present in passing a bill (distinguished Field v. Clark, above) (law concerned classification of fabrics for customs purposes)