top of page
Search

Today in Supreme Court History: November 19

  • Writer: captcrisis
    captcrisis
  • Nov 18, 2025
  • 1 min read

Goudy v. Meath, 203 U.S. 146 (decided November 19, 1906): Congress may exempt land held by Native Americans from taxation before they sell it but didn’t do so here; Congress had declared in 1887 that plaintiff’s tribe were now citizens so he had to pay taxes from that point forward


United States v. Cambridge Loan & Building Co., 278 U.S. 55 (decided November 19, 1928): government was estopped from collecting back taxes even though taxpayer “building and loan association” was making too much money on the outside to qualify for exemption designed for nonprofits


Francisco v. Gathright, 419 U.S. 59 (decided November 19, 1974): habeas petitioner didn’t have to resubmit to state court his claim that the state statute he had been arrested under was unconstitutional; his state appeals had been exhausted but the state supreme court then issued a decision in another case agreeing that the statute was unconstitutional (Sharp v. Commonwealth, 1972, where the Virginia Supreme Court held that intent to distribute drugs cannot be inferred solely from the quantity possessed) (I think it can very well be inferred, unless the possessor was the all-consuming Hunter S. Thompson)

 
 
 

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