top of page
Search

Today in Supreme Court History: November 4

  • Writer: captcrisis
    captcrisis
  • Nov 4, 2023
  • 1 min read

District of Columbia v. Eslin, 183 U.S. 62 (decided November 4, 1901): judgment by contractor against the District of Columbia’s Board of Public Works is uncollectable because filed in court which no longer had jurisdiction, even though judgment and notice of appeal were filed before statute eliminating jurisdiction was enacted (repeal statute had explicitly vacated all existing proceedings) (sounds like a Due Process violation to me)


Stanton v. Sims, 571 U.S. 3 (decided November 4, 2013): police officer enjoyed qualified immunity from §1983 suit brought by woman whose front gate was kicked down while he was in warrantless “hot pursuit” of suspect (this kind of thing actually happened to a friend of mine, in the early 1990’s; my research skills, rudimentary at that point, led me to believe that her case fell within a “de minimus” exception, even though to her that ruined front door was pretty expensive)


INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (decided November 4, 2002): Circuit Court can’t decide fact issues de novo (here, as to Government’s “changed conditions” argument that Guatemala was now safer and political asylum no longer merited); should have remanded back to Board of Immigration Appeals

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Today in Supreme Court History: November 11

Boylan v. Hot Springs Ry. Co. , 132 U.S. 146 (decided November 11, 1889): passenger properly thrown off train when refusing to pay extra on return trip even though he had paid round trip fare, where t

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: November 10

Ex Parte Crouch , 112 U.S. 178 (decided November 10, 1884): federal courts cannot via habeas vacate state court convictions except on jurisdictional grounds (gradually overruled, most specifically by

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: November 9

Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. , 510 U.S. 17 (decided November 9, 1993): Title VII claimant (“abusive work environment”) need not show that her psychological well-being was “seriously affected”; tot

 
 
 

Comments


Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page