top of page
Search

Today in Supreme Court History: January 2

  • Writer: captcrisis
    captcrisis
  • Jan 2, 2025
  • 1 min read

Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (decided January 2, 1952): Defendant vomited out two capsules of (illegal) morphine at hospital after being force-fed an emetic. After police broke into his house and dragged him there. All this without a warrant. Yeah, Due Process (“shocks the conscience”) violation. Capsules should have been suppressed, conviction vacated. No dissents.


Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, 340 U.S. 211 (decided January 2, 1951): distillers’ agreement to set prices above which wholesalers could not resell was conspiracy in violation of Sherman Act (overruled by Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 1984, to the extent that a parent corporation can’t be said to conspire with its affiliate)


Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Ry. Co. v. Bohon, 200 U.S. 221 (decided January 2, 1906): wrongful death suit against railroad and its employee can’t be split for the purposes of removing the suit against the railroad on basis of diversity; it’s an inseparable controversy (this was before the Federal Employers Liability Act, which created vicarious liability and made suing the employee separately unnecessary)


 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Today in Supreme Court History: February 4

Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R.R. Co. , 342 U.S. 359 (decided February 4, 1952): release of personal injury defendant sued under Federal Employers’ Liability Act is determined by federal, not st

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: February 3

Germany v. Philipp , 592 U.S. 169 (decided February 3, 2021): Foreign Sovereignty Immunities Act barred suit in U.S. courts by Holocaust survivors to recover value of property they were forced to sell

 
 
 
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 en

 
 
 

Comments


Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page