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 22

Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (decided January 22, 1973): balancing interests of the state vs. privacy interest of mother, invalidates Texas’s near-absolute ban on abortion (only exception was to save li

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: January 21

Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n , 558 U.S. 310 (decided January 21, 2010): Court disallows on First Amendment grounds any restrictions on use of general corporate or union funds to advocate

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: January 20

Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co. , 355 U.S. 373 (decided January 20, 1958): Robinson-Patman Act (prohibiting underselling to destroy competition by use of means unavailable to competition) does not

 
 
 

Comments


Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page