top of page
Search

Today in Supreme Court History: November 4

  • Writer: captcrisis
    captcrisis
  • Oct 29, 2024
  • 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 to me like the statute violated Due Process)


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: 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