Irvine v. California, 347 U.S. 128 (decided February 8, 1953): state (though not federal goverment) can use illegal means to obtain evidence; defendant still has remedy of suing officers under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (police had locksmith make extra key for door, installed hidden microphone, ran wire through roof, and recorded conversations as to gambling) (though never explicitly overruled this case can’t still be good law)
Partmar Corp. v. Paramount Pictures Theatres Corp., 347 U.S. 89 (decided February 8, 1954): Attorney General wins Sherman Act antitrust case against distributor/theater owner/franchisor (Paramount). Paramount sues the theater operator/tenant/franchisee (Partmar) to void the lease due to illegality and to evict. Partmar counterclaims for conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws. Then the AG’s victory gets overturned on appeal, 334 U.S. 131, the Court holding that the franchise agreement was not per se illegal. So in arguing for eviction Paramount now has to argue that its conduct, notwithstanding the reversal, still violated antitrust, and Partmar argues that even if no antitrust violation there was still a conspiracy in intrastate commerce (outside the scope of the Sherman Act) and that no attempt to disprove conspiracy was made in the AG suit. Still with me? The trial court holds both that there was no reason to terminate the lease and also, as a matter of law, no conspiracy. Partmar appeals as to the dismissal of the counterclaims without a trial; it still wanted disgorgement of excessive rents, etc. The Court here holds that the finding as to the lease being legal (which was not appealed) necessarily included a finding of no conspiracy, and therefore that the counterclaims are precluded. But as this article points out, it’s not clear that the elements of the counterclaims had been fully and fairly litigated. “Collateral Estoppel and the Right to Appeal”, 7 Stanford L. Rev. 114 - 120 (1954).
C.J. Hendry Co. v. Moore, 318 U.S. 133 (decided February 8, 1943): California courts could affirm seizure of “purse net” (absurdly large net which was nuisance to other fishers) in navigable waters; did not fall within federal courts’ exclusive admiralty jurisdiction because seizure is a common law remedy (preserved by the Jones Act “saving to suitors” clause, 28 U.S.C. §1333)
Williams v. Peyton’s Lessee, 17 U.S. 77 (decided February 8, 1819): invalidating tax sale of property because purchaser could not show that it had been properly advertised
Owens v. Hanney, 13 U.S. 180 (decided February 8, 1815): breakout of war does not invalidate judgment citizen of enemy has already obtained against a United States citizen
Comentarios