top of page
Search

Today in Supreme Court History: October 13

  • Writer: captcrisis
    captcrisis
  • Oct 13, 2023
  • 1 min read

Moore v. Terminal Railroad Ass’n of St. Louis, 358 U.S. 31 (decided October 13, 1958): Court, without opinion, reverses Missouri Supreme Court and upholds jury verdict that railroad company had share of negligence in accident where plaintiff, a baggage handler operating a “hand cart” (remember those in old movies?), was crushed against a train when another train backed into his wagon; Frankfurter dissents on “sole cause” doctrine; Whittaker holds himself together long enough to write a longer dissent, noting that collision happened only because plaintiff turned his cart the wrong way (no mention of whether the cart was damaged, which means plaintiff was white — remember the quicksand scene in “Blazing Saddles”?)


Ziang Sung Wan v. United States, 266 U.S. 1 (decided October 13, 1924): confession to murder was not made voluntarily and should have been excluded; rejects presumption that a confession is voluntary so long as not “induced by promise or threat” (this is of course pre-Miranda); defendant, already in ill health due to earlier bout with “Spanish flu”, had been held incommunicado and interrogated for 13 straight days and when prison doctor saw him had to be removed to “the Red Cross room”

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Today in Supreme Court History: January 28

Gold v. United States , 352 U.S. 985 (decided January 28, 1957): defendant on trial for filing false affidavit stating he was not Communist Party member (such affidavits had to be submitted by union o

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: January 27

Adair v. United States , 208 U.S. 161 (decided January 27, 1908): Congress cannot criminalize sacking an interstate carrier employee for being a union member because membership in a union is not inter

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: January 26

Crawford v. Nashville , 555 U.S. 271 (decided January 26, 2009): Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids retaliation against an employee who makes an accusation of sexual harassment.  Here t

 
 
 

Comments


Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page