Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (decided February 28, 1823): Why do law professors like to play with the heads of 1L’s? In Property Law, instead of starting the course with some simple cases illustrating basic principles, they confuse new law students with this mishmash involving purchase of land from an Indian tribe, the granting of a federal land patent to someone else, the “doctrine of discovery”, “aboriginal title” . . . and almost all the opinion is dicta where they’re forced to listen to Marshall expound on the Rights of Whites by Conquest. There is no possible way this case helps them understand real life property law. (Another torturer of students in their first week of law school was Farnsworth, who decided to start his Contracts casebook with Laredo Hides v. H & H Meat Products, where the student is forced to learn a complicated formula for damages — this is, mind you, after a contract is formed, after it’s broken, and after it’s litigated on liability. “In medias rae” might be a good trick to use in fiction, but in teaching a course it’s poor, poor, poor.) As for the holding, it’s not worth mentioning because it didn’t pertain to the actual facts. Most law students would be better off if they could extract all memory of this case from their brains.
Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (decided February 28, 2001): state could not identify on the ballot those candidates for Congress who failed to support term limits (which BTW was like inviting couch potatoes to an exercise class; voters who support term limits by definition are too lazy to drag their asses to the polls to vote the rascals out)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (decided February 28, 2011): hearsay statement by police as to mortally wounded man’s identification of who shot him did not violate Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause; purpose of “emergency” interrogation was to save man’s life (he died in hospital a few hours later)
Texaco, Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U.S. 1 (decided February 28, 2006): joint venture’s decision to sell separately branded gasoline at same price was not illegal horizontal price fixing (the “joint venture” was between Texaco and Shell Oil, who agreed to sell “Texaco” and “Shell” gas at same price — how is this not an illegal “cartel”? — yet Thomas writes for a unanimous Court)
Delaware v. Pennsylvania, 598 U.S. 115 (decided February 28, 2023): other states successfully sue to prevent Delaware from hogging up abandoned MoneyGram orders; they go not to MoneyGram’s state of incorporation (Delaware, of course) but to states where they were purchased
Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (decided February 28, 1990): police entering with a warrant and arresting armed robbery suspect can conduct “protective sweep” of premises for individuals who might pose danger (during this “protective sweep” police found outfit matching description of what man was wearing at time of robbery)
Comments