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 entities are entitled to Clause protection
Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531 (decided February 2, 1970): I did my law review article on the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees the right to a jury trial in a civil case in actions at law (but not equity). Stupidly, one has to look at what the law vs. equity distinction was in 1791 (when the Bill of Rights went into effect) to see whether there is a right to a jury trial today. Here, the Court says a stockholder’s derivative suit (traditionally equity) is an action at law because its allegation of waste by the directors would be an action at law if brought by the corporation itself against the directors. (?) Footnote 4, adding to the analysis “the practical abilities and limitations of juries”, hasn’t gotten any traction; courts continue to allow juries to hear complicated “actions at law” they don’t understand. (Talking to jurors after verdict in cases I’ve tried, I see that sometimes they don’t even understand simple cases, and fixate on irrelevant trivia.)
Brock v. North Carolina, 344 U.S. 424 (decided February 2, 1953): after mistrial because of refusal of two (prosecution) witnesses to testify, second trial on same offense did not violate Double Jeopardy (overruled by Benton v. Maryland, 1969)
Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (decided February 2, 1948): Officer smelled opium smoke, knocked, she opened the door, and they arrested her. The Court holds that a warrant (which they point out would have been granted) was required. (There’s a “plain view” doctrine, but apparently no “plain smell” doctrine.)
Louisiana v. Mississippi, 282 U.S. 458 (decided February 2, 1931): original jurisdiction case dealing with the Mississippi River changing course over the years; once again we learn that “accretion” (gradual erosion or addition) can change a boundary, but “avulsion” (land looped by river which then gets cut off from the mainland) does not. I learned another word, “chute”, which is the new stream that cuts off the loop and straightens the course of the river, eventually becoming the main course.
Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hillmon, 188 U.S. 208 (decided February 2, 1903): The last gasp of this famous case which dragged on for 24 years, where here the Court sends the case back for a seventh trial, vacating a verdict for Sallie Hillmon based on an improperly introduced affidavit. She had tried to collect on life insurance policies by proving that her husband had died by accidental gunshot at Crooked Creek, Kansas in 1879. Was the deceased John Hillmon or one Fred Walters? The earlier Court decision, from 1892, established the hearsay exception for future intention (admitting into evidence a letter written at Wichita from Walters to his fiancée stating that he intended to go to Colorado with his new buddy Hillmon; this might show that it was really Walters who was shot because Crooked Creek was along the way and Walters, who wrote Sallie often, was never heard from again). My Evidence professor did his usual excellent job recounting this story, ending with, “To this day, nobody knows who was shot at Crooked Creek”, but Wikipedia reports on a 2006 exhumation which concluded that it probably was indeed Hillmon. Anyway, Sallie was paid off before this 1903 decision and instead of going through with a seventh trial the remaining insurers settled with each other.
Comments