top of page
Search

Today in Supreme Court History: October 22

  • Writer: captcrisis
    captcrisis
  • Oct 22, 2023
  • 1 min read

Maney v. United States, 278 U.S. 17 (decided October 22, 1928): District Court award of citizenship was not res judicata; United States could still institute cancellation proceedings; award could be attacked on basis that necessary Certificate of Arrival from the Department of Labor had not been attached to petition


Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22 (decided October 22, 1923): Supreme Court can review facts on federal claim that had been rendered irrelevant in state court due to state rules on pleading


American Ry. Express Co. v. Levee, 263 U.S. 19 (decided October 22, 1923): common carrier limitation on liability, though invalid under state law, is valid under ICC rules which supersede on interstate commerce (here, damages for value of contents of trunk lost by railroad)


Benziger v. Robertson, 122 U.S. 211 (decided October 22, 1887): imported rosaries are not subject to tariff on “beads or bead ornaments”; though made of the same material, they are used in prayer and not as ornaments and put in pockets when prayers are finished (having grown up Catholic in the 1960’s I saw rosaries used ostentatiously, in effect as ornaments, and also the nuns wore them around their waists like belts)

 
 
 

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