See Disclaimer Below.

Archive for the ‘History’ Category

, , , ,

“A Selected Bibliography on the Political and Legal Thought of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.,” by Seth Vannatta

In Academia, American History, Arts & Letters, Books, Conservatism, History, Humanities, Jurisprudence, Law, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Politics, Pragmatism, Scholarship on October 7, 2015 at 8:45 am

Seth Vannatta

Seth Vannatta is an Associate Professor and Interim Department Head in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Morgan State University. He earned a PhD in Philosophy at Southern Illinois University Carbondale (2010), where he lived from 2006-2010. Before attending SIUC, Seth taught grades 5 through 12 in the History, English, and Religion Departments at Casady School. He served as head varsity volleyball coach for ten years and head varsity soccer coach for three years. He also served as chair of the history department for two years. He has a BA from Colorado College in History (1995) and a Master’s in Liberal Arts from Oklahoma City University (2002). His wife, Rachel, has a BA from Northwestern University (2006), an Master’s in Counselor Education from Southern Illinois University (2010) and is a doctoral candidate in Counselor Education at George Washington University.

Alexander, Tom. “John Dewey and the Moral Imagination: Beyond Putnam and Rorty toward a Postmodern Ethics.” Transactions of the Charles Sanders Peirce Society. Vol. XXIX. No. 3. (Summer,1993), 369-400.

Alschuler, Albert. Law without Values. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Anderson, Douglas. “Peirce’s Agape and the Generality of Concern.” International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion. (Summer,1995), 103-112.

Anderson, Douglas. “Peirce and the Art of Reasoning.” Studies in Philosophy and Education.  No. 24. (2005), 277-289.

Austin, John. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. New Dehli: Universal Law Publishing Printers, 2008.

Auxier, Randall. “Dewey on Religion and History.” Southwest Philosophy Review. Vo. 6. No. 1. January, (1990), 45-58.

_____________. “Religion and Theology.” for The Philosophy of Law: An Encyclopedia. Ed. Christopher B. Gray (Garland Publishing Co., 1999), 735-738.

_____________. “Foucault, Dewey, and the History of the Present.” Journal of Speculative Philosophy. Vol. 16. No. 2. (2002), 75-102.

_____________. “The Decline of Evolutionary Naturalism in Later Pragmatism,” Pragmatism: From Progressivism to Postmodernism. Ed. Hollinger, Robert. (Westport: Praeger, 1995), 135-150.

Baltimore and Ohio Railroad v. Goodman, 275 U.S. 66 (1927).

Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France. London: Penguin Books, 1986.

 The Commentaries of Sir William Blackstone, Knt. On the Laws and Constitution of England.  Ed. William Curry. London: Elibron Classics, Adamant Media Corporation, 2005.

Plato Complete Works. Edited by John Cooper. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1997.

Dailey, Anne C. “Holmes and the Romantic Mind.” Duke Law Journal. Vol. 48. No. 3 (Dec., 1998), 429-510.

Dewey, John. Human Nature and Conduct. Middle Works, Volume 14, 1922. Edited by Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1967-1990.

____________. Experience and Nature. Later Works, Volume 1. Edited by Jo Ann Boydston.  Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1967-1990.

____________. “Justice Holmes and the Liberal Mind.” Later Works. Volume 3. Edited by Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1967-1990.

____________. “Three Independent Factors in Morals.” Later Works. Volume 14. Edited by Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1967-1990.

____________. “Qualitative Thought.” Later Works, Volume 5. Edited by Jo Ann Boydston.  Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1967-1990.

____________. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Later Works, Volume 12, 1938. Edited by Jo Ann     Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1967-1990.

____________. “My Philosophy of Law.” Later Works. Volume 14. Edited by Jo Ann Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1967-1990.

____________. “Time and Individuality.” Later Works, Volume 14. Edited by Jo Ann Boydston.   Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1967-1990.

Fisch, Max. “Justice Holmes, the Prediction Theory of Law, and Pragmatism.” The Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 34. No. 4. (February 12, 1942) 85-97.

Gadamer, Hans Georg. Truth and Method. London: Continuum, 2006.

Gouinlock, James. “Dewey,” in Ethics in the History of Western Philosophy. Edited by James  Gouinlock. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1989.

­­­­­­­­­______________. John Dewey’s Philosophy of Value. New York: Humanities Press, 1972.

Grey, Thomas C. “Holmes and Legal Pragmatism.” 41 Stanford Law Review 787 (April 1989), 787-856.

_____________. “Freestanding Legal Pragmatism.”18 Cardozo Law Review 21. (September, 1996), 21-42.

Hantzis, Catharine Wells, “Legal Theory: Legal Innovation within the Wider Intellectual   Tradition: The Pragmatism of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.” 82 Northwestern University Law Review. 541. (Spring, 1988), 543-587

Hickman, Larry A. Pragmatism as Post-postmodernism Lessons from John Dewey. New York:    Fordham University Press, 2007.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Edited by C. B. Macpherson. London: Penguin Books, 1985.

Holmes-Einstein Letters. Edited by James Bishop Peabody. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1964.

“Holmes, Peirce, and Legal Pragmatism.” The Yale Law Journal. Vol. 84. No. 5. (Apr. 1975), 1123-1140.

Holmes, Oliver Wendell. Dissent in ABRAMS ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 250 U.S. 616. November 10, 1919.

250 U.S. 616 (1919) Espionage Act (§ 3, Title I, of Act approved June 15, 1917, as amended May 16, 1918, 40 Stat. 553).

Hume, David. A Treatise Concerning Human Nature. NuVision Publications, 2007.

Kant, Immanuel. “What is Enlightenment?” in The Philosophy of Kant Immanuel Kant’s Moral    and Political Writings. Edited by Carl Friedrich. New York: The Modern Library, 1949.

_____________. “Of the Relation of Theory to Practice in Constitutional Law” in The Philosophy of Kant Immanuel Kant’s Moral and Political Writings. Edited by Carl Friedrich. New York: The Modern Library, 1949.

Kellogg, Frederic R. “Legal Scholarship in the Temple of Doom: Pragmatism’s Response to Critical Legal Studies.” 65 Tulane Law Review 15 (November, 1990), 16-56.

________________. “Holistic Pragmatism and Law: Morton White on Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.” Transactions of the Charles Peirce Society. Vol. XL. No. 4. (Fall, 2004), 559-567.

________________. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Legal Theory, and Judicial Restraint, Cambridge: University Press, 2007.

Kronman, Anthony T. “Alexander Bickel’s Philosophy of Jurisprudence.” 94 Yale Law Journal.   (June, 1985), 1567-1616.

Locke, John. Second Treatise on Civil Government. Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1986.

Luban, David. “The Posner Variations (Twenty-Seven Variations on a Theme by Holmes).” Stanford Law Review. Vol. 48. No. 4 (Apr. 1996), 1001-1036.

___________. “Justice Holmes and the Metaphysics of Judicial Restraint. Duke Law Journal. Vol. 44. No. 3. (December, 1994), 449-523.

___________. Legal Modernism. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997.

Maine, Sir Henry James. Ancient Law. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd.; New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1917.

McDermott, John. Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy. March 17, 2008, East Lansing, Michigan.

Menand, Louis. The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2001.

Pragmatism A Reader. Ed. Louis Menand. New York: Vintage Books, 1997.

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism On Liberty Essay on Bentham together with selected writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. Edited by Mary Warnock. New York: New American      Library, 1974. 

The Essential Writings of Charles S. Peirce. Ed. Edward Moore. New York: Prometheus Books, 1998.

Nietzsche, Friedrich . “On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life.” in Untimely Meditations. Translated by R. Hollingdale, 1983. 

The Collected Works of Justice Holmes. Vol. I. Edited by Sheldon Novick. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. 

The Collected Works of Justice Holmes, Vol. 3, ed. Sheldon M. Novick. Chicago: University of  Chicago Press, 1995.

Nussbaum, Martha. “The Use and Abuse of Philosophy in Legal Education.” 45 Stanford Law Review 1627 (1993), 1627-1645.

Peirce, Charles S. “The Fixation of Belief.” in The Essential Peirce. Edited by Edward C. Moore. Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1998.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­______________. “Questions Concerning Certain Capacities Claimed for Man.” in The Essential  Peirce. Edited by Edward C. Moore. Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1998.

______________. “Philosophy and the Conduct of Life.” in Reasoning and the Logic of   Things.  Edited by Kenneth Lane Ketner. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992.

______________. “Evolutionary Love,” The Essential Peirce, Volume I (1867-1893). Ed.  Nathan Houser and Christian Kloesel. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992.

Posner, Richard A. The Economics of Justice. Boston: Harvard University Press, 1981. 

_______________. Frontiers of Legal Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.

_______________. The Problems of Jurisprudence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990.

_______________. Overcoming Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.

_______________. Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.

_______________. The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory. Cambridge: Harvard     University Press, 1999.

_______________. How Judges Think. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008.

The Essential Holmes. ed. Richard Posner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Revised Edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.

von Savigny, Fredrich Carl. Of the Vocation of Our Age for Legislation and Jurisprudence.  North Stratford: Ayer Company Publishers, 2000.

Schedler, George. “Hobbes on the Basis of Political Obligation.” Journal of the History of Philosophy. April (1977), 165-170.

Sullivan, Michael and Solove, Daniel J. “Can Pragmatism Be Radical? Richard Posner and Legal Pragmatism.” Yale Law Journal. Vol. 113. No. 3. (Dec. 2003), 687-741.

Sullivan, Michael. Legal Pragmatism Community, Rights, and Democracy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2007.

______________. “Pragmatism and Precedent: A Response to Dworkin,” Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy, Vol. 26. No. 2. (Spring 1990), 225-248.

Thomson, Judith Jarvis “A Defense of Abortion,” in Contemporary Moral Problems. Edited by James E. White. Eighth Edition. United States: Thomson Wadsworth, 2006.

Part II

Alexander, Tom. John Dewey’s Theory of Art, Experience, and Nature The Horizons of Feeling.   Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987.

Anderson, Douglas. Strands of System The Philosophy of Charles Peirce. Purdue University  Press, 1995.

Cardozo, Benjamin. The Nature of the Judicial Process. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961.

Dworkin, Ronald. Law’s Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986.

Fisch, Max. “Was there a Metaphysical Club in Cambridge?—Postscript.” Transactions of the       Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal in American Philosophy. 17 (Spring    1981), 128-130.

Hart, H.L.A. The Concept of Law. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

 The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Ed. Golding and Edmundson.   Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.

Black’s Law Dictionary. Ed. Bryan A. Garner. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1996.

The Holmes-Laski Letters. The Correspondence of Mr. Justice Holmes and Harold J. Laski. Ed.    Felix Frankfurter. Vol. I and II. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953.

The Holmes-Pollock Letters The Correspondence of Mr. Justice Holmes and Sir Frederick Pollock 1874-1932. Ed. Mark DeWolfe Howe. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,  1942.

Howe, Mark DeWolfe. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes II: The Proving Years, 1870-1882 (1963).

Johnson, Michael. “Posner on the Uses and Disadvantages of Precedents for Law.” 23 Review of Litigation. 144 (2003), 143-156.

Kant, Immanuel. Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. Lewis White Beck. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997.

Kellogg, Frederic R. “Holmes, Common Law Theory, and Judicial Restraint.” 36 Marshal Law Review 457 (Winter, 2003).

Luban, David. “The Bad Man and the Good Lawyer: A Centennial Essay on Holmes’s The Path of the Law.” NYU Law Review. Vol. 72. No. 6, (1997), 1547-83.

___________. “What’s Pragmatic About Legal Pragmatism?” Cardozo Law Review. Vol. 18. No. 1 (1996), 43-73.

Modak-Truran, Mark C. “A Pragmatic Justification of the Judicial Hunch.” 35 University of Richmond Law Review 55 (March, 2001).

Murphey, Murray G. Philosophical Foundations of Historical Knowledge. Albany: SUNY Press, 1994.

My Philosophy of Law Sixteen Credos of American Scholars. Boston: Boston Law Book Co., 1941.

Parker, Kunal. “The History of Experience: On the Historical Imagination of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.” PoLAR. Vol. 26. No 2.

Oakeshott, Michael. On History. Oxford: Liberty Fund, 1999.

________________. Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays. Oxford: Liberty Fund, 1991.

Posner, Richard A. Cardozo: a Study in Reputation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.

_______________. The Economic Analysis of Law. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1977.

_______________. “Symposium on the Renaissance of Pragmatism in American Legal Thought: What has Pragmatism to Offer Law?” 63 S. Cal. Law Review. 1653. September (1990).

Pound, Roscoe. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. New York: Penguin Books, 2006.

Rorty, Richard, “Dewey and Posner on Pragmatism and Moral Progress.” 74 University of Chicago Law Review 915 (2007).

Tushnet, Mark. “The Logic of Experience: Oliver Wendell Holmes on the Supreme Court.” 63 Virginia Law Review 975 (1977).

Vetter, Jan. “The Evolution of Holmes, Holmes and Evolution.” 72 California Law Review 343  (May, 1984).

Wacks, Raymond. Philosophy of Law A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Wells, Catherine Pierce. “Symposium Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. The Judging Years: Holmes on Legal Method: The Predictive Theory of Law as an Instance of Scientific Method.” 18 S.M.U. Law Review 329 (Winter, 1994).

White, Edward G. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Law and the Inner Self. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

 

, , , , ,

Paul H. Fry on “The Social Permeability of Reader and Text”

In Arts & Letters, Books, History, Humanities, Literary Theory & Criticism, Literature, Philosophy, Rhetoric, Rhetoric & Communication, Teaching, The Academy, Western Philosophy on September 30, 2015 at 8:45 am

Below is the next installment in the lecture series on literary theory and criticism by Paul H. Fry.  The previous lectures are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

 

, , , ,

“Raleigh and Spenser, 1580,” by F L Light

In Arts & Letters, Britain, British Literature, Creative Writing, History, Humanities, Literature, Writing on September 23, 2015 at 8:45 am

Fred Light

A Shakespearean proficiency in meter and rhetoric may to F L Light be ascribed. Nearly forty of his dramas are now available on Amazon, and twenty have been produced for Audible. His Gouldium is a series of twenty four dramas on the life and times of Jay Gould which he followed with six plays on Henry Clay Frick. The whole first book of his translation of The Iliad was published serially in Sonnetto Poesia. He has also appeared in Classical Outlook and The Raintown Review. Most of his thirty five books of couplets are on economics, such as Shakespeare Versus Keynes and Upwards to Emptiness the State Expands.

This scene (from a work in progress) occurs after the Battle of Glenmalure in County Wicklow, Ireland, where the English suffered a strong defeat. Edmund Spenser was secretary to Lord Grey, the English general at that battle. Raleigh and Spenser were later to become neighbors in Munster. Spenser had vexed Queen Elizabeth when he sought to dissuade her from marriage to the Duke of Alençon in The Shepherds’ Calendar.

Dublin Castle. Enter Sir Walter Raleigh and Edmund Spenser.

Raleigh: The Phoenix re-inflames herself to stand
Alive. Like her we can re-spring ourselves
And spread our advents forth. Re-mustered loyalty
Can be enlarged. In multiplied aggression
We may go forth erelong. They’ve not undone
Regeneration nor defeated fatherly
Revival of our cause. In myriad dominance
Amain we’ll march again and recommence
Composure in this land. Colonial neighborhoods
Of Perikles in fertilized profundity
May lettered conscientiousness assert.
This island of untutored emptiness
Oxonian literacy should accept
Or Cantabrigian dogma comprehend.
No feudal diffidence in reason nor
Despotic fairyland we Englishmen
Profess. The fairest possibilities
Of free endeavors should in husbandry
Not pall on Ireland.

Spenser: If recoveries
Refresh mortality for us, then all
Of Desmond’s Munster is dispropertied
And shall in efficacious forfeiture
To Lord Grey’s officers be meted out.

Raleigh: Incentive victory therefore may as
The greediest of attainments comfort us.
Now for the landed fortune of a lord
I’d follow my triumphant appetite
And trust emotional inclemency
For gain.

Spenser: A magnate’s animosity
For main extents you mean, in deep intent
On money.

Raleigh: Gainful joyance is no jape
For me. To my increaseful happiness,
Disposed like Croesus, I would magnify
My dirt.

Spenser: The fertile presence of your voice
In Munster would immortal lucre breed.
But the uncivilized delusions seen
Among the people there no peaceable
Facilities permit.

Raleigh: That profit is
The flow where life proceeds in grace the folk
Of Ireland will perceive. Your fluency,
In clarion inculcation, should be clear
Enough for that. Unguarded politics
Allow the Queen. You should political
Decorum to consultants in the court
Concede. On lucrative georgics, not
Upon her Majesty’s conclusiveness
In marriage, should your verses touch.

Spenser: Therefore
On spacious tilth for capital I should,
Sir Walter, songful eloquence enlarge?

Raleigh: I say proprietary sapience may
The most unsoftened pulchritude confirm
In poetry. The unmitigated tone
Of merchantry for English metre would
Be fit. Commercial intonations may
The strongest likelihood for music hold.
Singing your sagaciousness on seeds
For money, you would planters multiply
For Munster’s plenitude of various means.

Spenser: Now that convulsive wilderness consumedly
Has waned. Delinquent emptiness is left
In Munster, where abandoned decadence
Abides in death. Of starved disorder few
Survive. The naked likelihood of misery
Upon fulfilled oppression is avowed.
Now warfare to inflammable extremes,
Infesting Ireland, intervenient fire
On Desmond’s land inflicts.

Raleigh: But after war
The inflammation of vitality
We shall for savant juvenescence light
In Ireland. Verdant exploitation I’d
Advise and greenest diligence for growth.

, , , , , ,

Scene from “A Trial of Recognition,” by F L Light

In Arts & Letters, Britain, British Literature, Creative Writing, Fiction, History, Humanities, Law, Literature, Shakespeare on September 16, 2015 at 8:45 am

Fred Light

A Shakespearean proficiency in meter and rhetoric may to F L Light be ascribed. Nearly forty of his dramas are now available on Amazon, and twenty have been produced for Audible. His Gouldium is a series of twenty four dramas on the life and times of Jay Gould which he followed with six plays on Henry Clay Frick. The whole first book of his translation of The Iliad was published serially in Sonnetto Poesia. He has also appeared in Classical Outlook and The Raintown Review. Most of his thirty five books of couplets are on economics, such as Shakespeare Versus Keynes and Upwards to Emptiness the State Expands.

The Earls of Essex and Southampton are tried together for High Treason before a jury of the noblest peers. Pleading not guilty, they strive in angry and arrant disputation with Attorney General Edward Coke and Francis Bacon. This drama is the third part of an Aeschylean trilogy and maintains the classical form of tragedy in English with seven scenes of dialogue and seven choral performances.

This trial was conducted in Westminster Hall, February 19th, 1601.

Yelverton: Now the Attorney General will speak.

Coke: My lords of courtly justice, chief pronouncers
And primest fathers of preceptive law,
Treason unsettles what is set by God.
Thrones of established exaltation it
Would overthrow. The firmest Tudor fundament
Upon immediate evanescence fades
To nothing should betrayal triumph, come
Upon premeditated compassments
Of power. Therefore to think projected thoughts
Of treason, all in violent mindfulness
For power, is death. And he that strides against
The realm, with royalty striving, must be judged
By the intent transgression of his thought.
Whoever is at arms in his array
Of might amid a kingdomed commonwealth
Founded on authentic ancestry,
Cannot be suffered by the law, perceived
As lawless as usurpers are.

Essex: But sir,
No duke would a defenseless dukedom in
This realm maintain. No helpless earldom would
An earl endure. Their settlements are set
Apart from central pertinence in Whitehall.
By vassalled mightiness they serve the main.
And undefended danger I would not
Support, assured that Lord Grey or Sir Walter Raleigh
Were raising homicides against me. Thus
I am no traitor, here a man traduced
For his defensive force.

Coke: You say, my lord,
In a protective insurrection you
Arose, forfending murder by revolt,
Who would insurgently secure yourself.
But all rebels would dissemble their revolt
Or revocation of regimes. Lord Darcy,
That traitor in the Pilgrimage of Grace,
By wrongful reprobation Thomas Cromwell
Blamed for his rebellion, that he feared
The King’s chief minister would murder him.
And like yourself Sir Thomas Wyatt to check
The Spanish from an English crown presumed
At arms his Protestant resolve, who drew
A proditory rise upon the realm.
But as a culpable defendant he
Was put to death. A guiltier prisoner
Than Wyatt you are who by her Majesty
The loftiest rooms of favor were allowed,
Made Master of the Horse at twenty two,
Admitted to the Privy Council then.
Soon as Earl Marshal of the realm you were
Preferred, and for Cadiz were given high
Command, and by her Majesty’s regard
The Azores’ were your charge. And higher yet
For Lord Lieutenant and Governor of Ireland
Her Majesty’s commission you received.
Beyond this, you had bounteous delectation
In her gifts to you, deemed more than thirty
Thousand pounds in favor. But you for pride
And inconsiderate presumption thanklessly
Repressed your memories of wealth. No man
A more ungrateful appetite, when fed
With grace, could manifest than you, who’d by
The kingliest insatiety consume
Yourself, your loyalty, and your liege. All this
Concerns her Majesty, against whose throne
Your rising throbbed. And though no Britishman
Without applause can of her Majesty’s
Protective justice speak, I must remark
That overmeasured mercy by the Queen
Will bring unmerciful exorbitance
On her. For though inhuman disobedience
Would have disabled England, yet no man
Howso wayward ever, violent ever,
Was crossly racked or tortured overthwart
For his confession. Most of them would make
Their conscientious peace with God. The truth
Came forth with faithful certitude in God,
As true religion can relinquish enmity.
Accordant attestations they conveyed,
Though sifted severally.

Essex: Now your unsifted speech
I’ve suffered, Master Coke, at culpable
Traducements kept before you, by confined
Civility not answering forthwith
The guiltiest allegations laid on me.
With insurrectional salvation might
The realm be saved from priestly sinfulness
Of blameful priests who’d stupefaction stress.

, , , ,

The Dissents of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

In American History, History, Humanities, Law, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., The Supreme Court on September 2, 2015 at 8:45 am

Allen 2

The following table categorizes Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s dissents according to “Dissenting Opinions Authored” and “Dissenting Opinions Joined.” Totaling the dissents in each column will not result in the sum of the cases in which Holmes dissented because the table includes only cases in which Holmes dissented with a writing. (Holmes sometimes dissented without an opinion or joined another dissenting justice who did not write an opinion.) The seven cases that appear in both columns are Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562 (1906); American Column & Lumber Co. v. U.S., 257 U.S. 377 (1921); U.S. ex rel. Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407 (1921); Myers v. U.S., 272 U.S. 52 (1926); Tyson & Bro.-United Theatre Ticket Offices v. Banton, 273 U.S. 418 (1927); Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928); and Baldwin v. State of Missouri, 281 U.S. 586 (1930).

 

 

Dissenting Opinions Authored

 

  

Dissenting Opinions Joined

 
 

1.      Northern Securities Co. v. U.S., 193 U.S. 197 (1904) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

2.      Kepner v. U.S., 195 U.S. 100 (1904) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

3.      Muhlker v. New York & H.R. Co., 197 U.S. 544 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

4.      Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

5.      Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Bernard Mining Co., 196 U.S. 239 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

6.      Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562 (1906) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

7.      Bernheimer v. Converse, 206 U.S. 516 (1907) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

8.      Travers v. Reinhardt, 205 U.S. 423 (1907) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

9.      Chanler v. Kelsey, 205 U.S. 466 (1907) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

10.  Raymond v. Chicago Union Traction Co., 207 U.S. 20 (1907) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

11.  Howard v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 207 U.S. 463 (1908) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

12.  Adair v. U.S., 208 U.S. 161 (1908) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

13.  Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 214 U.S. 492 (1909) (per curiam) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

14.  Keller v. U.S., 213 U.S. 138 (1909) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

15.  Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Louis Voight & Sons Co., 212 U.S. 227 (1909) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

16.  Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Sowers, 213 U.S. 55 (1909) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

17.  Southern Ry. Co. v. King, 217 U.S. 524 (1910) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

18.  Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Co., 215 U.S. 349 (1910) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

19.  Pullman Co. v. State of Kansas ex rel. Coleman, 216 U.S. 56 (1910) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

20.  Western Union Telegraph Co. v. State of Kansas ex rel. Coleman, 216 U.S. 1 (1910).

21.  Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

22.  Bailey v. State of Alabama, 219 U.S. 219 (1911) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

23.  Brown v. Elliott, 225 U.S. 392 (1912) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

24.  Hyde v. U.S., 225 U.S. 347 (1912) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

25.  Donnelly v. U.S., 228 U.S. 243 (1913) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

26.  Coppage v. State of Alabama, 236 U.S. 1 (1915) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

27.  Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309 (1915) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

28.  Southern Pac. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205 (1917) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

29.  Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

30.  Ruddy v. Rossi, 248 U.S. 104 (1918) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

31.  Toledo Newspaper Co. v. U.S., 247 U.S. 402 (1918) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

32.  International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

33.  Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

34.  City and County of Denver v. Denver Union Water Co., 246 U.S. 278 (1918) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

35.  Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

36.  Maxwell v. Bugbee, 250 U.S. 525 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

37.  Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

38.  Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149 (1920) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

39.  Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

40.  Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 (1921) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

41.  American Column & Lumber Co. v. U.S., 257 U.S. 377 (1921) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

42.  Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180 (1921) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

43.  U.S. ex rel. Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407 (1921) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

44.  Leach v. Carlile, 258 U.S. 138 (1922) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

45.  U.S. v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280 (1922) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

46.  Federal Trade Commission v. Beech-Nut Packing Co., 257 U.S. 441 (1922) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

47.  Adkins v. Children’s Hospital of the District of Columbia, 261 U.S. 525 (1923) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

48.  Bartels v. State of Iowa, 262 U.S. 404 (1923) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

49.  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. State of West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553 (1923) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

50.  Craig v. Hecht, 263 U.S. 255 (1923) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

51.  Panama R. Co. v. Rock, 266 U.S. 209 (1924) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

52.  Gitlow v. People of State of New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

53.  Weaver v. Palmer Bros. Co., 270 U.S. 402 (1926) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

54.  Schlesinger v. State of Wisconsin, 270 U.S. 230 (1926) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

55.  Myers v. U.S., 272 U.S. 52 (1926) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

56.  Frost v. Railroad Commission of State of Cal., 271 U.S. 583 (1926) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

57.  Power Mfg. Co. v. Sanders, 274 U.S. 490 (1927) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

58.  Tyson & Bro.-United Theatre Ticket Offices v. Banton, 273 U.S. 418 (1927) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

59.  Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87 (1927) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

60.  Quaker City Cab Co. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 277 U.S. 389 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

61.  Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. Coleman, 277 U.S. 32 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

62.  Panhandle Oil Co. v. State of Mississippi ex rel. Knox, 277 U.S. 218 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

63.  Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. U.S., 276 U.S. 287 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

64.  Long v. Rockwood, 277 U.S. 142 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

65.  Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

66.  Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

67.  Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co., 276 U.S. 518 (1928) (Holmes, J. dissenting).

68.  Springer v. Government of Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189 (1928) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

69.  U.S. v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

70.  Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co. v. State of Minnesota, 280 U.S. 204 (1930) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

71.  New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. v. State Board of Texas and Assessment of New Jersey, 280 U.S. 338 (1930) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

72.  Baldwin v. State of Missouri, 281 U.S. 586 (1930) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

73.  Hoeper v. Tax Commission of Wis., 284 U.S. 206 (1931) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

 

  

1.      Board of Directors of Chicago Theological Seminary v. People of State of Illinois ex rel. Raymond, 188 U.S. 662 (1903) (White, J., dissenting).

2.      Hafemann v. Gross, 199 U.S. 342 (1905) (White, J., dissenting).

3.      Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562 (1906) (Brown, J., dissenting).

4.      Neilson v. Rhine Shipping Co., 248 U.S. 205 (1918) (McKenna, J., dissenting).

5.      Sandberg v. McDonald, 248 U.S. 185 (1918) (McKenna, J., dissenting).

6.      F.S. Royster Guano Co. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 253 U.S. 412 (1920) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

7.      Schaefer v. U.S., 251 U.S. 466 (1920) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

8.      U.S. v. Reading Co., 253 U.S. 26 (1920) (White, C.J., dissenting).

9.      Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 (1921) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

10.  American Column & Lumber Co. v. U.S., 257 U.S. 377 (1921) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

11.  Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443 (1921) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

12.  U.S. ex rel. Milwaukee Social Democratic Pub. Co. v. Burleson, 255 U.S. 407 (1921) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

13.  U.S. v. Moreland, 258 U.S. 433 (1922) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

14.  U.S. v. Oregon Lumber Co., 260 U.S. 290 (1922) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

15.  Lemke v. Farmers’ Grain Co. of Embden, N.D., 258 U.S. 50 (1922) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

16.  Kentucky Finance Corp. v. Paramount Auto Exch. Corp., 262 U.S. 544 (1923) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

17.  Texas Transport & Terminal Co. v. City of New Orleans, 264 U.S. 150 (1924) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

18.  Jay Burns Baking Co. v. Bryan, 264 U.S. 504 (1924) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

19.  Myers v. U.S., 272 U.S. 52 (1926) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

20.  Di Santo v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 273 U.S. 34 (1927) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

21.  Tyson & Bro.-United Theatre Ticket Offices v. Banton, 273 U.S. 418 (1927) (Stone, J., dissenting).

22.  Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

23.  Wuchter v. Pizzutti, 276 U.S. 13 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

24.  John P. King Mfg. Co. v. City Council of Augusta, 277 U.S. 100 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

25.  Baldwin v. State of Missouri, 281 U.S. 586 (1930) (Stone, J., dissenting).

 

 

, , ,

The Majority Opinions of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

In American History, History, Humanities, Law, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. on August 26, 2015 at 8:45 am

Allen 2

What follows is a list of Holmes’s majority opinions on the U.S. Supreme Court, chronologically by year but not by date of authorship; in other words, I have not made an effort to determine whether certain cases should precede other cases on the ground that they were written earlier in the year, e.g., in April rather than December. Although the cases proceed chronologically by year, they are not purely chronological. This list has filtered out several writings that are sometimes mistakenly attributed to Holmes. For instance, Goltra v. Weeks, 271 U.S. 536 (1926), and Yu Cong Eng. v. Trinidad, 271 U.S. 500 (1926), are sometimes attributed to Holmes because he announced the opinion, but the opinion was authored by Chief Justice Taft, who was absent on the day of the announcement. (A recent Westlaw search turned up results that had mistakenly attributed these two opinions by Chief Justice Taft to Holmes.)

  1. S. v. Barnett, 189 U.S. 474 (1903).
  2. National Bank & Loan Co. of Watertown, N.Y. v. Carr, 189 U.S. 426 (1903).
  3. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Behymer, 189 U.S. 468 (1903).
  4. Home Life Ins. Co. v. Fisher, 188 U.S. 726 (1903).
  5. American Colortype Co. v. Continental Colortype Co., 188 U.S. 104 (1903).
  6. Brownfield v. State of S.C., 189 U.S. 426 (1903).
  7. Pullman Co. v. Adams, 189 U.S. 420 (1903).
  8. Otis v. Parker, 187 U.S. 606 (1903).
  9. Kidd v. State of Alabama, 188 U.S. 730 (1903).
  10. Pardee v. Aldridge, 189 U.S. 429 (1903).
  11. Fourth Nat. Bank of St. Louis v. Albaugh, 188 U.S. 734 (1903).
  12. Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co., 191 U.S. 373 (1903).
  13. State of Missouri v. Dockery, 191 U.S. 165 (1903).
  14. Beasley v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 191 U.S. 492 (1903).
  15. Wisconsin & M. Co. v. Powers, 191 U.S. 379 (1903).
  16. National Bank & Loan Co. v. Petrie, 189 U.S. 423 (1903).
  17. Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co., 191 U.S. 376 (1903).
  18. Ex parte Joins, 191 U.S. 93 (1903).
  19. Queenan v. Territory of Oklahoma, 190 U.S. 548 (1903).
  20. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. U.S., 191 U.S. 159 (1903).
  21. S. v. Sweet, 189 U.S. 471 (1903).
  22. Hanley v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 187 U.S. 617 (1903).
  23. Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239 (1903).
  24. Hutchinson v. Otis, Wilcox & Co., 190 U.S. 552 (1903).
  25. Randolph & Randolph v. Scruggs, 190 U.S. 533 (1903).
  26. Blackstone v. Miller, 188 U.S. 189 (1903).
  27. Knoxville Water Co. v. City of Knoxville, 189 U.S. 434 (1903).
  28. S. v. Officers, etc., of U.S.S. Mangrove, 188 U.S. 720 (1903).
  29. Francis v. U.S., 188 U.S. 375 (1903).
  30. Hardin v. Shedd, 190 U.S. 508 (1903).
  31. San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Jasper, 189 U.S. 439 (1903).
  32. Wright v. Morgan, 191 U.S. 55 (1903).
  33. S. v. The Paquete Habana, 189 U.S. 453 (1903).
  34. Globe Refining Co. v. Landa Cotton Oil Co., 190 U.S. 540 (1903).
  35. Republic of Colombia v. Cauca Co., 190 U.S. 524 (1903).
  36. Diamond Glue Co. U.S. Glue Co., 187 U.S. 611 (1903).
  37. Southern Pacific R. v. U.S., 189 U.S. 447 (1903).
  38. Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475 (1903).
  39. Kean v. Calumet Canal & Improvement Co., 190 U.S. 452 (1903).
  40. Davis v. Mills, 194 U.S. 451 (1904).
  41. International Postal Supply Co. v. Bruce, 194 U.S. 601 (1904).
  42. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. May, 194 U.S. 267 (1904).
  43. Rippey v. State of Tex., 193 U.S. 504 (1904).
  44. Shaw v. City of Covington, 194 U.S. 593 (1904).
  45. Rogers v. State of Alabama, 192 U.S. 226 (1904).
  46. Aikens v. State of Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194 (1904).
  47. Ex parte Republic of Colombia, 195 U.S. 604 (1904).
  48. Damon v. Territory of Hawaii, 194 U.S. 154 (1904).
  49. S. v. Evans, 195 U.S. 361 (1904).
  50. Chandler v. Dix, 194 U.S. 590 (1904).
  51. German Sav. & Loan Soc. v. Dormitzer, 192 U.S. 125 (1904).
  52. Lee v. Robinson, 196 U.S. 64 (1904).
  53. Eaton v. Brown, 193 U.S. 411 (1904).
  54. Baltimore Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. City of Baltimore, 195 U.S. 375 (1904).
  55. Wright v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 195 U.S. 219 (1904).
  56. James v. Appel, 192 U.S. 129 (1904).
  57. City of Seattle v. Kelleher, 195 U.S. 351 (1904).
  58. McIntire v. McIntire, 192 U.S. 116 (1904).
  59. Central Stock Yards Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 192 U.S. 568 (1904).
  60. Terre Haute & I. Co. v. State of Indiana ex rel. Ketcham, 194 U.S. 579 (1904).
  61. Wedding v. Meyler, 192 U.S. 573 (1904).
  62. Citizens’ Nat. Bank of Kansas City v. Donnell, 195 U.S. 369 (1904).
  63. Fargo v. Hart, 193 U.S. 490 (1904).
  64. S. v. California & Oregon Land Co., 192 U.S. 355 (1904).
  65. Ah How v. S., 193 U.S. 65 (1904).
  66. Slater v. Mexican Nat. R. Co., 194 U.S. 120 (1904).
  67. S. v. Sing Tuck, 194 U.S. 161 (1904).
  68. Small v. Rakestraw, 196 U.S. 403 (1905).
  69. Minnesota Iron Co. v. Kline, 199 U.S. 593 (1905).
  70. Bartlett v. U.S., 197 U.S. 230 (1905).
  71. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co., 197 U.S. 430 (1905).
  72. Jaster v. Currie, 198 U.S. 144 (1905).
  73. Humphrey v. Tatman, 198 U.S. 91 (1905).
  74. Chesapeake Beach Ry. Co. v. Washington, P. & C.R. Co., 199 U.S. 247 (1905).
  75. Savannah, Thunderbolt & I. Ry. v. Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah, 198 U.S. 392 (1905).
  76. Stillman v. Combe, 197 U.S. 436 (1905).
  77. Simpson v. U.S., 199 U.S. 397 (1905).
  78. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Aitken, 196 U.S. 589 (1905).
  79. Coulter v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 196 U.S. 599 (1905).
  80. City of Dawson v. Columbia Ave. Saving Fund, Safe Deposit, Title & Trust Co., 197 U.S. 178 (1905).
  81. Lincoln v. S., 197 U.S. 419 (1905).
  82. Clark v. Roller, 199 U.S. 541 (1905).
  83. Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co. of New York, 199 U.S. 401 (1905).
  84. Tampa Waterworks Co. v. City of Tampa, 199 U.S. 241 (1905).
  85. Union Trust Co. v. Wilson, 198 U.S. 530 (1905).
  86. Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Christie Grain & Stock Co., 198 U.S. 236 (1905).
  87. Greer County v. State of Texas, 197 U.S. 235 (1905).
  88. Gregg v. Metropolitan Trust Co., 197 U.S. 183 (1905).
  89. Eclipse Bicycle Co. Farrow, 199 U.S. 581 (1905).
  90. S. v. Harvey Steel Co., 196 U.S. 310 (1905).
  91. S. v. Whitridge, 197 U.S. 135 (1905).
  92. Remington v. Central Pac. R. Co., 198 U.S. 95 (1905).
  93. Swift & Co. U.S., 196 U.S. 375 (1905).
  94. S. v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (1905).
  95. The Eliza Lines, 199 U.S. 119 (1905).
  96. De Rodriguez v. Vivoni, 201 U.S. 371 (1906).
  97. Carter v. Territory of Hawaii, 200 U.S. 255 (1906).
  98. Louis Dressed Beef & Provision Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 201 U.S. 173 (1906).
  99. Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Deer, 200 U.S. 176 (1906).
  100. Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Min. Co., 200 U.S. 527 (1906).
  101. State of Missouri v. State of Illinois, 202 U.S. 598 (1906).
  102. Hazelton v. Sheckels, 202 U.S. 71 (1906).
  103. Northern Assur. Co. v. Grand View Bldg. Ass’n, 203 U.S. 106 (1906).
  104. Rawlins v. State of Georgia, 201 U.S. 638 (1906).
  105. Landrum v. Jordan, 203 U.S. 56 (1906).
  106. Fidelity Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Clark, 203 U.S. 64 (1906).
  107. Halsell v. Renfrow, 202 U.S. 287 (1906).
  108. Whitney v. Dresser, 200 U.S. 532 (1906).
  109. S. v. Clark, 200 U.S. 601 (1906).
  110. S. v. George Riggs & Co., 203 U.S. 136 (1906).
  111. Rearick v. of Pennsylvania, 203 U.S. 507 (1906).
  112. Pearson v. Williams, 202 U.S. 281 (1906).
  113. Otis Co. v. Ludlow Mfg. Co., 201 U.S. 140 (1906).
  114. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. City of Atlanta, 203 U.S. 390 (1906).
  115. Guy v. Donald, 203 U.S. 399 (1906).
  116. Cincinnati, P., B., S. & P. Packet Co. v. Bay, 200 U.S. 179 (1906).
  117. State of Missouri v. State of Illinois, 200 U.S. 496 (1906).
  118. Cox v. State of Texas, 202 U.S. 446 (1906).
  119. Ballmann v. Fagin, 200 U.S. 186 (1906).
  120. Soper v. Lawrence Bros. Co., 201 U.S. 359 (1906).
  121. In re Moran, 203 U.S. 96 (1906).
  122. Burt v. Smith, 203 U.S. 129 (1906).
  123. Merchants’ Nat. Bank of Cincinnati v. Wehrmann, 202 U.S. 295 (1906).
  124. S. v. Dalcour, 203 U.S. 408 (1906).
  125. National Council, Junior Order United American Mechanics of U.S. v. State Council of Virginia, Junior Order United American Mechanics of Virginia, 203 U.S. 151 (1906).
  126. S. v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563 (1906).
  127. S. v. Milliken Imprinting Co., 202 U.S. 168 (1906).
  128. People of State of New York ex rel. New York Cent. & H.R.R. Co. v. Miller, 202 U.S. 584 (1906).
  129. Mason City & Ft. D.R. Co. v. Boynton, 204 U.S. 570 (1907).
  130. Martin v. District of Columbia, 205 U.S. 135 (1907).
  131. Merchants’ Heat & Light Co. James B. Clow & Sons, 204 U.S. 286 (1907).
  132. Flemister v. U.S., 207 U.S. 372 (1907).
  133. Paraiso v. S., 207 U.S. 368 (1907).
  134. Harrison v. Magoon, 205 U.S. 501 (1907).
  135. Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349 (1907).
  136. S. v. Brown, 206 U.S. 240 (1907).
  137. Allen v. U.S., 204 U.S. 581 (1907).
  138. William W. Bierce, Limited v. Hutchins, 205 U.S. 340 (1907).
  139. Arkansas Southern R. Co. v. German Nat. Bank, 207 U.S. 270 (1907).
  140. Interstate Consol. St. Ry. Co. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 207 U.S. 79 (1907).
  141. S. ex rel. West v. Hitchcock, 205 U.S. 80 (1907).
  142. Osborne v. Clark, 204 U.S. 565 (1907).
  143. Erie R. Co. v. Erie & Western Transp. Co., 204 U.S. 220 (1907).
  144. Old Dominion S.S. Co. v. Gilmore, 207 U.S. 398 (1907).
  145. Patch v. Wabash R. Co., 207 U.S. 277 (1907).
  146. State of Ga. V. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U.S. 230 (1907).
  147. People of State of New York ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U.S. 152 (1907).
  148. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Babcock, 204 U.S. 585 (1907).
  149. Taylor v. U.S., 207 U.S. 120 (1907).
  150. Moore v. McGuire, 205 U.S. 214 (1907).
  151. East Central Eureka Mining Co. v. Central Eureka Mining Co., 204 U.S. 266 (1907).
  152. Leathe v. Thomas, 207 U.S. 93 (1907).
  153. Copper Queen Consol. Min. Co. v. Territorial Board of Equalization of Territory of Arizona, 206 U.S. 474 (1907).
  154. Patterson v. People of State of Colorado ex rel. Attorney General of State of Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (1907).
  155. Schlemmer v. Buffalo, R. & P. R. Co., 205 U.S. 1 (1907).
  156. Ellis v. S., 206 U.S. 246 (1907).
  157. Ex parte First Nat. Bank of Chicago, 207 U.S. 61 (1907).
  158. First Nat. Bank of Albuquerque v. Albright, 208 U.S. 548 (1908).
  159. Honolulu Rapid Transit & Land Co. v. Wilder, 211 U.S. 144 (1908).
  160. Steele v. Culver, 211 U.S. 26 (1908).
  161. Smith v. Rainey, 209 U.S. 53 (1908).
  162. Honolulu Rapid Transit & Land Co. v. Wilder, 211 U.S. 137 (1908).
  163. Paddell v. City of New York, 211 U.S 446 (1908).
  164. State of Louisiana v. Garfield, 211 U.S. 70 (1908).
  165. Chin Yow v U.S., 208 U.S. 8 (1908).
  166. Carrington v. S., 208 U.S. 1 (1908).
  167. S. v. Thayer, 209 U.S. 39 (1908).
  168. United Dictionary Co. v. G & C Merriam Co., 208 U.S. 260 (1908).
  169. Battle v. U.S., 209 U.S. 36 (1908).
  170. O’Reilly De Camara v. Brooke, 209 U.S. 45 (1908).
  171. Ex parte Simon, 208 U.S. 144 (1908).
  172. Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co. v. Hall’s Safe Co., 208 U.S. 554 (1908).
  173. Hutchins v. William W. Bierce, 211 U.S. 429 (1908).
  174. S. v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 209 U.S. 447 (1908).
  175. Donnell v. Herring-Hall-Marvin Safe Co., 208 U.S. 267 (1908).
  176. S. v. Sisseton and Wahpeton Bands of Sioux Indians, 208 U.S. 561 (1908).
  177. Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. Lewisohn, 210 U.S. 206 (1908).
  178. Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349 (1908).
  179. Dotson v. Milliken, 209 U.S. 237 (1908).
  180. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. State of Texas, 210 U.S. 217 (1908).
  181. Bailey v. State of Alabama, 211 U.S. 452 (1908).
  182. Kansas City N. W. R. Co. v. Zimmerman, 210 U.S. 336 (1908).
  183. Central R. Co. of New Jersey v. Jersey City, 209 U.S. 473 (1908).
  184. Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U.S. 230 (1908).
  185. Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., 211 U.S. 210 (1908).
  186. Harriman v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 211 U.S. 407 (1908).
  187. Rankin v. City Nat. Bank of Kansas City, 208 U.S. 541 (1908).
  188. Laborde v. Ubarri, 214 U.S. 173 (1909).
  189. Santos v. Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, 212 U.S. 463 (1909).
  190. Van Gieson v. Maile, 213 U.S. 338 (1909).
  191. Leech v. State of Louisiana, 214 U.S. 175 (1909).
  192. Scott County Macadamized Road Co. v. State of Mo. ex rel., 215 U.S. 336 (1909).
  193. S. v. Union Supply Co., 215 U.S. 50 (1909).
  194. Dupree v. Mansur, 214 U.S. 161 (1909).
  195. Peck v. Tribune Co., 214 U.S. 185 (1909).
  196. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Wilson, 213 U.S. 52 (1909).
  197. Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78 (1909).
  198. Ubarri v. Laborde, 214 U.S. 168 (1909).
  199. Sylvester v. State of Washington, 215 U.S. 80 (1909).
  200. The Eugene F. Moran, 212 U.S. 466 (1909).
  201. Reid v. U.S., 211 U.S. 529 (1909).
  202. Bagley v. General Fire Extinguisher Co., 212 U.S. 477 (1909).
  203. American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347 (1909).
  204. Rumford Chemical Works v. Hygienic Chemical Co. of New Jersey, 215 U.S. 156 (1909).
  205. Reavis v. Fianza, 215 U.S. 16 (1909).
  206. City of Des Moines v. Des Moines City Ry. Co., 214 U.S. 179 (1909).
  207. Frederic L. Grant Shoe Co. v. W.M. Laird Co., 212 U.S. 445 (1909).
  208. Graves v. Ashburn, 215 U.S. 331 (1909).
  209. Boquillas Land & Cattle Co. v. Curtis, 213 U.S. 339 (1909).
  210. Manson v. Williams, 213 U.S. 453 (1909).
  211. Mammoth Min. Co. v. Grand Central Min. Co., 213 U.S. 72 (1909).
  212. Snyder v. Rosenbaum, 215 U.S. 261 (1909).
  213. Fleming v. McCurtain, 215 U.S. 56 (1909).
  214. Spreckels v. Brown, 212 U.S. 208 (1909).
  215. Carino v. Insular Government of Philippine Islands, 212 U.S. 449 (1909).
  216. Steward v. American Lava Co., 215 U.S. 161 (1909).
  217. State of Missouri v. State of Kansas, 213 U.S. 78 (1909).
  218. Louisville v. N.R. Co. v. Central Stock Yards Co., 212 U.S. 132 (1909).
  219. Illinois Cent. Co. of State of Illinois v. Sheegog, 215 U.S. 308 (1909).
  220. S. v. Welch, 217 U.S. 333 (1910).
  221. Thomas v. Sugarman, 218 U.S. 129 (1910).
  222. Dozier v. State of Alabama, 218 U.S. 124 (1910).
  223. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. State of North Dakota ex rel. McCue, 216 U.S. 579 (1910).
  224. Stoffela v. Nugent, 217 U.S. 499 (1910).
  225. C. Cook Co. v. Beecher, 217 U.S. 497 (1910).
  226. Boston Chamber of Commerce v. City of Boston, 217 U.S. 189 (1910).
  227. Tiglao v. Insular Government of Philippine Islands, 215 U.S. 410 (1910).
  228. Board of Assessors of the Parish of Orleans v. New York Life Ins. Co., 216 U.S. 517 (1910).
  229. Javierre v. Central Altagracia, 217 U.S. 502 (1910).
  230. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Delaware, L. & W.R. Co., 216 U.S. 531 (1910).
  231. Maytin v. Vela, 216 U.S. 598 (1910).
  232. In re Cleland, 218 U.S. 120 (1910).
  233. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. State of Nebraska, 217 U.S. 196 (1910).
  234. Laurel Hill Cemetery v. City and County of San Francisco, 216 U.S. 358 (1910).
  235. Saxlehner v. Wagner, 216 U.S. 375 (1910).
  236. Calder v. People of State of Michigan, 218 U.S. 591 (1910).
  237. Fisher v. City of New Orleans, 218 U.S. 438 (1910).
  238. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Cornell Steamboat Co., 218 U.S. 264 (1910).
  239. Standard Oil Co. of Kentucky v. State of Tennessee ex rel. Cates, 217 U.S. 413 (1910).
  240. Arkansas Southern Ry. Co. v. Louisiana & A. Ry. Co., 218 U.S. 431 (1910).
  241. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co. v. Government of Philippine Islands, 219 U.S. 17 (1910).
  242. Conley v. Ballinger, 216 U.S. 84 (1910).
  243. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 216 U.S. 538 (1910).
  244. Hawaiian Trust Co. Von Holt, 216 U.S. 367 (1910).
  245. S. v. Kissel, 218 U.S. 601 (1910).
  246. S. v. Plowman, 216 U.S. 372 (1910).
  247. Richardson v. Ainsa, 218 U.S. 289 (1910).
  248. Rickey Land & Cattle Co. v. Miller v. Lux, 218 U.S. 258 (1910).
  249. Stewart v. Griffith, 217 U.S. 323 (1910).
  250. Brill v. Washington Ry. & Electric Co., 215 U.S. 527 (1910).
  251. Title Guaranty & Trust Co. of Scranton, Pa. v. Crane Co., 219 U.S. 24 (1910).
  252. Duryea Power Co. v. Sternbergh, 218 U.S. 299 (1910).
  253. Holt v. U.S., 218 U.S. 245 (1910).
  254. King v. State of West Virginia, 216 U.S. 92 (1910).
  255. Shallenberger v. First State Bank of Holstein, Neb., 219 U.S. 114 (1911).
  256. S. v. Plyler, 222 U.S. 15 (1911).
  257. Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 575 (1911).
  258. S. v. Fidelity Trust Co., 222 U.S. 158 (1911).
  259. Sperry & Hutchinson Co. Rhodes, 220 U.S. 502 (1911).
  260. Bean v. Morris, 221 U.S. 485 (1911).
  261. Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros., 222 U.S. 55 (1911).
  262. Blinn v. Nelson, 222 U.S. 1 (1911).
  263. Sexton v. Dreyfus, 219 U.S. 339 (1911).
  264. Sena v. American Turquoise Co., 220 U.S. 497 (1911).
  265. In re Harris, 221 U.S. 274 (1911).
  266. Mayer v. American Security & Trust Co., 222 U.S. 295 (1911).
  267. Arnett v. Reade, 220 U.S. 311 (1911).
  268. Enriquez v. Go-Tiongco, 220 U.S. 307 (1911).
  269. Assaria State Bank v. Dolley, 219 U.S. 121 (1911).
  270. Lenman v. Jones, 222 U.S. 51 (1911).
  271. Lewers & Cooke v. Atcherly, 222 U.S. 285 (1911).
  272. Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 104 (1911).
  273. Glucksman v. Henkel, 221 U.S. 508 (1911).
  274. Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280 (1911).
  275. Jacobs v. Beecham, 221 U.S. 263 (1911).
  276. Grigsby v. Russell, 222 U.S. 149 (1911).
  277. Engel v. O’Malley, 219 U.S. 128 (1911).
  278. Taylor v. Leesnitzer, 220 U.S. 90 (1911).
  279. S. v. O’Brien, 220 U.S. 321 (1911).
  280. S. v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 220 U.S. 37 (1911).
  281. S. v. Johnson, 221 U.S. 488 (1911).
  282. of Virginia v. West Virginia, 222 U.S. 17 (1911).
  283. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Diffenbaugh, 222 U.S. 42 (1911).
  284. Sac and Fox Indians of the Mississippi in Iowa v. Sac and Fox Indians of the Mississippi in Oklahoma, 220 U.S. 481 (1911).
  285. of Virginia v. West Virginia, 220 U.S. 1 (1911).
  286. Southern R. Co. v. Burlington Lumber Co., 225 U.S. 99 (1912).
  287. Beutler v. Grand Trunk Junction R. Co., 224 U.S. 85 (1912).
  288. S. v. Wong You, 223 U.S. 67 (1912).
  289. Porto Rico Sugar Co. v. Lorenzo, 222 U.S. 481 (1912).
  290. De Noble v. Gallardo y Seary, 223 U.S. 65 (1912).
  291. Treat v. Grand Canyon R. Co., 222 U.S. 448 (1912).
  292. Swanson v. Sears, 224 U.S. 180 (1912).
  293. City of Louisville v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co., 225 U.S. 430 (1912).
  294. S. v. Baltimore & O.S.W.R. Co., 226 U.S. 14 (1912).
  295. Central Lumber Co. v. State of South Dakota, 226 U.S. 157 (1912).
  296. Waskey v. Chambers, 224 U.S. 564 (1912).
  297. Texas & P.R. Co. Howell, 224 U.S. 577 (1912).
  298. Wingert v. First Nat. Bank, 223 U.S. 670 (1912).
  299. Harty v. Municipality of Victoria, 226 U.S. 12 (1912).
  300. Gandia v. Pettingill, 222 U.S. 452 (1912).
  301. Washington Home for Incurables v. American Security & Trust Co., 224 U.S. 486 (1912).
  302. Murray v. City of Pocatello, 226 U.S. 318 (1912).
  303. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. U.S., 223 U.S. 560 (1912).
  304. American Security & Trust Co. Commissioners of District of Columbia, 224 U.S. 491 (1912).
  305. Sexton v. Kessler & Co., 225 U.S. 90 (1912).
  306. Ker & Co. v. Couden, 223 U.S. 268 (1912).
  307. Leary v. U.S., 224 U.S. 567 (1912).
  308. Darnell v. State of Indiana, 226 U.S. 390 (1912).
  309. Smith v. Hitchcock, 226 U.S. 53 (1912).
  310. Quong Wing v. Kirkendall, 223 U.S. 59 (1912).
  311. Cuba v. R. Co. v. Crosby, 222 U.S. 473 (1912).
  312. Southwestern Brewery & Ice Co. v. Schmidt, 226 U.S. 162 (1912).
  313. Burnet v. Desmornes y Alvarez, 226 U.S. 145 (1912).
  314. City of Pomona v. Sunset Tel. & Tel. Co., 224 U.S. 330 (1912).
  315. Keatley v. Furey, 226 U.S. 399 (1912).
  316. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. O’Connor, 223 U.S. 280 (1912).
  317. Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436 (1912).
  318. Cedar Rapids Gas Light Co. v. City of Cedar Rapids, 223 U.S. 655 (1912).
  319. Robertson v. Gordon, 226 U.S. 311 (1912).
  320. Meyer v. Wells Fargo & Co., 223 U.S. 298 (1912).
  321. World’s Fair Min. Co. v. Powers, 224 U.S. 173 (1912).
  322. Collins v. State of Tex., 223 U.S. 288 (1912).
  323. Western Union Tel. v. City of Richmond, 224 U.S. 160 (1912).
  324. Jones v. Springer, 226 U.S. 148 (1912).
  325. S. v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 223 U.S. 565 (1912).
  326. Breese v. S., 226 U.S. 1 (1912).
  327. S. v. McMullen, 222 U.S. 460 (1912).
  328. Pittsburg Steel Co. v. Baltimore Equitable Soc., 226 U.S. 455 (1913).
  329. Johnson v. S., 228 U.S. 457 (1913).
  330. Marrone v. Washington Jockey Club of District of Columbia, 227 U.S. 633 (1913).
  331. Kener v. La Grange Mills, 231 U.S. 215 (1913).
  332. S. ex rel. Goldberg v. Daniels, 231 U.S. 218 (1913).
  333. Madera Waterworks v. City of Madera, 228 U.S. 454 (1913).
  334. Buchser v. Buchser, 231 U.S. 157 (1913).
  335. Ubeda v. Zialcita, 226 U.S. 452 (1913).
  336. Luke v. Smith, 227 U.S. 379 (1913).
  337. McGovern v. City of New York, 229 U.S. 363 (1913).
  338. Kinder v. Scharff, 231 U.S. 517 (1913).
  339. Seattle, R. & S. Co. v. State of Washington ex rel. Linhoff, 231 U.S. 568 (1913).
  340. Baxter v. Buchholz-Hill Transp. Co., 227 U.S. 637 (1913).
  341. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Schwyhart, 227 U.S. 184 (1913).
  342. Chuoco Tiaco v. Forbes, 228 U.S. 549 (1913).
  343. Mechanics’ & Metals Nat. Bank v. Ernst, 231 U.S. 60 (1913).
  344. Brooks v. Central Sainte Jeanne, 228 U.S. 688 (1913).
  345. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. U.S., 231 U.S. 112 (1913).
  346. The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co., 228 U.S. 22 (1913).
  347. Cordova v. Folgueras y. Rijos, 227 U.S. 375 (1913).
  348. Norfolk & W.R. Co. v. Dixie Tobacco Co., 228 U.S. 593 (1913).
  349. Greey v. Dockendorff, 231 U.S. 513 (1913).
  350. Bugajewitz v. Adams, 228 U.S. 585 (1913).
  351. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. v. Hesterly, 228 U.S. 702 (1913).
  352. Gutierrez del Arroyo v. Graham, 227 U.S. 181 (1913).
  353. Munsey v. Webb, 231 U.S. 150 (1913).
  354. Kalanianaole v. Smithies, 226 U.S. 462 (1913).
  355. Francis v. McNeal, 228 U.S. 695 (1913).
  356. S. v. Adams Exp. Co., 229 U.S. 381 (1913).
  357. Sanford v. Ainsa, 228 U.S. 705 (1913).
  358. Marshall Dental Mfg. Co. v. State of Iowa, 226 U.S. 460 (1913).
  359. Abilene Nat. Bank v. Dolley, 228 U.S. 1 (1913).
  360. Nash v. U.S., 229 U.S. 373 (1913).
  361. National City Bank of New York v. Hotchkiss, 231 U.S. 50 (1913).
  362. Graham v. U.S., 231 U.S. 474 (1913).
  363. Alzua v. Johnson, 231 U.S. 106 (1913).
  364. S. v. Winslow, 227 U.S. 202 (1913).
  365. Heike v. U.S., 227 U.S. 131 (1913).
  366. People of Porto Rico v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co., 227 U.S. 382 (1913).
  367. Brooklyn Min. & Mill. Co. v. Miller, 227 U.S. 194 (1913).
  368. Gray v. Taylor, 227 U.S. 51 (1913).
  369. Michigan Trust Co. v. Ferry, 228 U.S. 346 (1913).
  370. Frosch v. Walter, 228 U.S. 109 (1913).
  371. Louis Dejonge & Co. v. Breuker & Kessler Co., 235 U.S. 33 (1914).
  372. Taylor v. Parker, 235 U.S. 42 (1914).
  373. S. v. Moist, 231 U.S. 701 (1914).
  374. Detroit Steel Cooperage Co. v. Sistersville Brewing Co., 233 U.S. 712 (1914).
  375. Western Union Telegraph Co. Brown, 234 U.S. 542 (1914).
  376. Tinker v. Midland Valley Mercantile Co., 231 U.S. 681 (1914).
  377. Keokee Consol. Coke Co. v. Taylor, 234 U.S. 224 (1914).
  378. Southern Ry.-Carolina Division v. Bennett, 233 U.S. 80 (1914).
  379. Nadal v. May, 233 U.S. 447 (1914).
  380. S. v. Portale, 235 U.S. 27 (1914).
  381. Piza Hermanos v. Caldenty, 231 U.S. 690 (1914).
  382. Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. v. Polt, 232 U.S. 165 (1914).
  383. Curriden v. Middleton, 232 U.S. 633 (1914).
  384. Williamson v. Osenton, 232 U.S. 619 (1914).
  385. Pain v. Copper Belle Min. Co., 232 U.S. 595 (1914).
  386. Hammond Packing Co. v. State of Montana, 233 U.S. 331 (1914).
  387. Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Arizona & C. R. Co. of New Mexico, 233 U.S. 601 (1914).
  388. Holt v. Henley, 232 U.S. 637 (1914).
  389. Calaf v. Calaf, 232 U.S. 371 (1914).
  390. Missouri, K. & T.R. Co., v. U.S., 235 U.S. 37 (1914).
  391. Sage v. Hampe, 235 U.S. 99 (1914).
  392. International Harvester Co. of America v. Com. of Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216 (1914).
  393. Drew v. Thaw, 235 U.S. 432 (1914).
  394. Burbank v. Ernst, 232 U.S. 162 (1914).
  395. Patsone v. Com. of Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 138 (1914).
  396. Barnes v. Alexander, 232 U.S. 117 (1914).
  397. Valdes v. Larrinaga, 233 U.S. 705 (1914).
  398. Bacon v. Rutland R. Co., 232 U.S. 134 (1914).
  399. Trimble v. City of Seattle, 231 U.S. 683 (1914).
  400. John Ii Estate v. Brown, 235 U.S. 342 (1914).
  401. Montoya v. Gonzales, 232 U.S. 375 (1914).
  402. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Kaw Valley Drainage Dist. of Wyandotte County, Kan., 233 U.S. 75 (1914).
  403. Herbert v. Bicknell, 233 U.S. 70 (1914).
  404. Detroit & M. Ry. Co. v. Michigan R. R. Commission, 235 U.S. 402 (1914).
  405. Pullman Co. v. Knott, 235 U.S. 23 (1914).
  406. Charleston & W.C.R. Co. v. Thompson, 234 U.S. 576 (1914).
  407. Santa Fe Cent. R. Co. v. Friday, 232 U.S. 694 (1914).
  408. Thomas v. Matthiessen, 232 U.S. 221 (1914).
  409. Willoughby v. City of Chicago, 235 U.S. 45 (1914).
  410. Hobbs v. Head & Dowst Co., 231 U.S. 692 (1914).
  411. State of Alabama v. Schmidt, 232 U.S. 168 (1914).
  412. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. v. Mellor, 233 U.S. 718 (1914).
  413. San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irr. Co. v. Stanislaus County, 233 U.S. 454 (1914).
  414. Wheeler v. Sohmer, 233 U.S. 434 (1914).
  415. Gompers v. U.S., 233 U.S. 604 (1914).
  416. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co., 235 U.S. 88 (1914).
  417. S. v. Ohio Oil Co., 234 U.S. 548 (1914).
  418. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Keystone Elevator & Warehouse Co., 237 U.S. 432 (1915).
  419. Healy v. Sea Gull Specialty Co., 237 U.S. 479 (1915).
  420. Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. v. Swearingen, 239 U.S. 339 (1915).
  421. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Gray, 237 U.S. 399 (1915).
  422. Park v. Cameron, 237 U.S. 616 (1915).
  423. Grant Timber & Mfg. Co. v. Gray, 236 U.S. 133 (1915).
  424. Davis v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 236 U.S. 697 (1915).
  425. Dalton Adding Mach. Co. v. State Corp. Commission of Com. of Va., 236 U.S. 699 (1915).
  426. Duffy v. Charak, 236 U.S. 97 (1915).
  427. Fox v. Washington, 236 U.S. 273 (1915).
  428. Perryman v. Woodward, 238 U.S. 148 (1915).
  429. Gallardo v. Noble, 236 U.S. 135 (1915).
  430. Gegiow v. Uhl, 239 U.S. 3 (1915).
  431. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Koennecke, 239 U.S. 352 (1915).
  432. City of New York v. Sage, 239 U.S. 57 (1915).
  433. Charleston & W.C. Ry. Co. v. Varnville Furniture Co., 237 U.S. 597 (1915).
  434. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Burnette, 239 U.S. 199 (1915).
  435. S. v. New York & Porto Rico S.S. Co., 239 U.S. 88 (1915).
  436. Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611 (1915).
  437. Lumber Underwriters of New York v. Rife, 237 U.S. 605 (1915).
  438. Board of County Com’rs of City and County of Denver v. Home Sav. Bank, 236 U.S. 101 (1915).
  439. Lawlor v. Loewe, 235 U.S. 522 (1915).
  440. Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 237 U.S. 300 (1915).
  441. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Otos, 239 U.S. 349 (1915).
  442. United Surety Co. v. American Fruit Product Co., 238 U.S. 140 (1915).
  443. Ramapo Water Co. v. City of New York, 236 U.S. 579 (1915).
  444. S. v. Emery, Bird, Thayer Realty Co., 237 U.S. 28 (1915).
  445. Newman v. Lynchburg Inv. Corp., 236 U.S. 692 (1915).
  446. People of State of New York ex rel. Interborough Rapid Transit Co. v. Sohmer, 237 U.S. 276 (1915).
  447. Booth-Kelly Lumber Co. v. U.S., 237 U.S. 481 (1915).
  448. Ex parte Uppercu, 239 U.S. 435 (1915).
  449. S. v. Normile, 239 U.S. 344 (1915).
  450. Steinfeld v. Zeckendorf, 239 U.S. 26 (1915).
  451. Smoot v. U.S., 237 U.S. 38 (1915).
  452. Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441 (1915).
  453. S. Fidelity * Guarantee Co. v. Riefler, 239 U.S. 17 (1915).
  454. Linn & Lane Timber Co. v. U.S., 236 U.S. 574 (1915).
  455. New Orleans Taxpayers’ Protective Ass’n v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, 237 U.S. 33 (1915).
  456. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S. v. Pennsylvania, 238 U.S. 143 (1915).
  457. Yost v. Dallas County, 236 U.S 50 (1915).
  458. Wright v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 236 U.S. 687 (1915).
  459. S. v. Holte, 236 U.S. 140 (1915).
  460. Ellis v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 237 U.S. 434 (1915).
  461. Wright v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 236 U.S. 674 (1915).
  462. S. v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 (1915).
  463. New Orleans-Belize Royal Mail & Cent. American S.S. Co. v. U.S., 239 U.S. 202 (1915).
  464. O’Neil v. Northern Colorado Irr. Co., 242 U.S. 20 (1916).
  465. Eaton v. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 240 U.S. 427 (1916).
  466. Gast Realty v. Investment Co. v. Schneider Granite Co., 240 U.S. 55 (1916).
  467. Atlantic City R. Co. v. Parker, 242 U.S. 56 (1916).
  468. Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. City of Akron, 240 U.S. 462 (1916).
  469. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Peery, 242 U.S. 292 (1916).
  470. Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U.S. 506 (1916).
  471. Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Parker, 242 U.S. 13 (1916).
  472. Fleitmann v. Welsbach Street Lighting Co. of America, 240 U.S. 27 (1916).
  473. Straus v. Notaseme Hosiery Co., 240 U.S. 179 (1916).
  474. Portuguese-American Bank of San Francisco v. Welles, 242 U.S. 7 (1916).
  475. Brown v. Pacific Coast Coal Co., 241 U.S. 571 (1916).
  476. S. v. Oppenheimer, 242 U.S. 85 (1916).
  477. Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Ohio Valley Tie Co., 242 U.S. 288 (1916).
  478. Bullen v. State of Wisconsin, 240 U.S. 625 (1916).
  479. Maryland Dredging & Contracting Co. v. U.S., 241 U.S. 184 (1916).
  480. Pacific Mail S.S. Co. v. Schmidt, 241 U.S. 245 (1916).
  481. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Messina, 240 U.S. 395 (1916).
  482. Kansas City Western Ry. Co. v. McAdow, 240 U.S. 51 (1916).
  483. Badders v. U.S., 240 U.S. 391 (1916).
  484. Ackerlind v. U.S., 240 U.S. 531 (1916).
  485. Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Wilson, 242 U.S. 295 (1916).
  486. White v. U.S., 239 U.S. 608 (1916).
  487. Southern Wisconsin Ry. v. City of Madison, 240 U.S. 457 (1916).
  488. American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257 (1916).
  489. Kelly v. Griffin, 241 U.S. 6 (1916).
  490. S. v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U.S. 394 (1916).
  491. Lamar v. U.S., 240 U.S. 60 (1916).
  492. Hapai v. Brown, 239 U.S. 502 (1916).
  493. De La Rama v. De La Rama, 241 U.S. 154 (1916).
  494. Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Stewart, 241 U.S. 261 (1916).
  495. Gast Realty & Investment Co. v. Schneider Granite Co., 240 U.S. 55 (1916).
  496. Supreme Lodge K. of P. v. Mims, 241 U.S. 574 (1916).
  497. Terminal Taxicab Co. v. Kutz, 241 U.S. 252 (1916).
  498. Vernon-Woodberry Cotton Duck Co. v. Alabama Interstate Power Co., 240 U.S. 30 (1916).
  499. Johnson v. Root Mfg. Co., 241 U.S. 160 (1916).
  500. McFarland v. American Sugar Refining Co., 241 U.S. 79 (1916).
  501. Louisville & N. Co. v. U.S., 242 U.S. 60 (1916).
  502. Kansas City Southern R. v. Guardian Trust Co., 240 U.S. 166 (1916).
  503. Berry v. Davis, 242 U.S. 468 (1917).
  504. Herbert v. Shanley Co., 242 U.S. 591 (1917).
  505. I. Du Pont De Nemours Powder Co. v. Masland, 244 U.S. 100 (1917).
  506. Day v. U.S., 245 U.S. 159 (1917).
  507. Adamson v. Gilliland, 242 U.S. 350 (1917).
  508. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Winters, 242 U.S. 353 (1917).
  509. S. v. Davis, 243 U.S. 570 (1917).
  510. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. U.S., 243 U.S. 444 (1917).
  511. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. U.S., 243 U.S. 412 (1917).
  512. Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia Gold Issue Min. & Mill Co., 243 U.S. 93 (1917).
  513. McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U.S. 90 (1917).
  514. McGowan v. Columbia River Packers’ Ass’n, 245 U.S. 352 (1917).
  515. Nevada-California-Oregon Ry. v. Burrus, 244 U.S. 103 (1917).
  516. Hendersonville Light & Power Co. v. Blue Ridge Interurban Ry. Co., 243 U.S. 563 (1917).
  517. S. v. Leary, 245 U.S. 1 (1917).
  518. North German Lloyd v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York, 244 U.S. 12 (1917).
  519. Saunders v. Shaw, 244 U.S. 317 (1917).
  520. Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. City of Louisville, 245 U.S. 54 (1917).
  521. Rowland v. Boyle, 244 U.S. 106 (1917).
  522. Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Barber, 245 U.S. 146 (1917).
  523. Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Cherry, 244 U.S. 25 (1917).
  524. S. v. M.H. Pulaski Co., 243 U.S. 97 (1917).
  525. Wear v. State of Kansas ex rel. Brewster, 245 U.S. 154 (1917).
  526. In re Indiana Transportation Co., 244 U.S. 456 (1917).
  527. Paine Lumber Co. Neal, 244 U.S. 459 (1917).
  528. Gulf Oil Corporation v. Lewellyn, 248 U.S. 71 (1918).
  529. Gardiner v. William S. Butler & Co., 245 U.S. 603 (1918).
  530. Erie R. v. Hilt, 247 U.S. 97 (1918).
  531. Carney v. Chapman, 247 U.S. 102 (1918).
  532. Alice State Bank v. Houston Pasture Co., 247 U.S. 240 (1918).
  533. Southern Pac. Co. v. Darnell-Taenzer Lumber Co., 245 U.S. 531 (1918).
  534. Watters v. People of State of Michigan, 248 U.S. 65 (1918).
  535. Pendleton v. Benner Line, 246 U.S. 353 (1918).
  536. Dickinson v. Stiles, 246 U.S. 631 (1918).
  537. Gasquet v. Fenner, 247 U.S. 16 (1918).
  538. Greer v. U.S., 245 U.S. 559 (1918).
  539. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. State of Texas, 246 U.S. 58 (1918).
  540. H. Emery & Co. v. American Refrigerator Transit Co., 240 U.S. 634 (1918).
  541. Union Trust Co. v. Grosman, 245 U.S. 412 (1918).
  542. Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418 (1918).
  543. Detroit & M. Ry. Co. v. Fletcher Paper Co., 248 U.S. 30 (1918).
  544. In re Simons, 247 U.S. 231 (1918).
  545. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas v. State of Texas, 245 U.S. 484 (1918).
  546. George A. Fuller Co. v. Otis Elevator Co., 245 U.S. 489 (1918).
  547. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Hadley, 246 U.S. 330 (1918).
  548. Filene’s Sons Co. v. Weed, 245 U.S. 597 (1918).
  549. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Public Service Commission of Missouri, 248 U.S. 67 (1918).
  550. Waite v. Macy, 246 U.S. 606 (1918).
  551. International & G.N. Ry. Co. v. Anderson County, 246 U.S. 424 (1918).
  552. State of Georgia v. Trustees of Cincinnati Southern Ry., 248 U.S. 26 (1918).
  553. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Foster, 247 U.S. 105 (1918).
  554. Buckeye Powder Co. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours Powder Co., 248 U.S. 55 (1918).
  555. City of Covington v. South Covington & C. St. Ry. Co., 246 U.S. 413 (1918).
  556. Flexner v. Farson, 248 U.S. 289 (1919).
  557. City of Englewood v. Denver S.P. Ry. Co., 248 U.S. 294 (1919).
  558. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Houston Ice & Brewing Co., 250 U.S. 28 (1919).
  559. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Wright, 250 U.S. 519 (1919).
  560. Capitol Transp. Co. v. Cambria Steel Co., 249 U.S. 334 (1919).
  561. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Wright, 248 U.S. 525 (1919).
  562. Beaumont v. Prieto, 249 U.S. 554 (1919).
  563. Oelwerke Teutonia v. Erlanger & Galinger, 248 U.S. 521 (1919).
  564. Weigle v. Curtice Bros. Co., 248 U.S. 285 (1919).
  565. Lane v. Darlington, 249 U.S. 331 (1919).
  566. Dominion Hotel v. State of Arizona, 249 U.S. 265 (1919).
  567. Delaware, L. & W.R. Co. v. U.S., 249 U.S. 385 (1919).
  568. Liverpool, Brazil & River Plate Steam Nav. v. Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, 251 U.S. 48 (1919).
  569. Cordova v. Grant, 248 U.S. 413 (1919).
  570. Pierce Oil Corp. v. City of Hope, 248 U.S. 498 (1919).
  571. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Cole, 251 U.S. 54 (1919).
  572. Coleman v. U.S., 250 U.S. 30 (1919).
  573. Louis Poster Advertising Co. v. City of St. Louis, 249 U.S. 269 (1919).
  574. Pell v. McCabe, 250 U.S. 573 (1919).
  575. United Railroads of San Francisco v. City and County of San Francisco, 249 U.S. 517 (1919).
  576. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Public Service Commission of Com. of Pennsylvania, 250 U.S. 566 (1919).
  577. Darling v. City of Newport News, 249 U.S. 540 (1919).
  578. Debs v. U.S., 249 U.S. 211 (1919).
  579. Sage v. S., 250 U.S. 33 (1919).
  580. Crocker v. Malley, 249 U.S. 223 (1919).
  581. Panama R. Co. v. Bosse, 249 U.S. 41 (1919).
  582. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Tonopah & Tidewater R. Co., 248 U.S. 471 (1919).
  583. Frohwerk v. U.S., 249 U.S. 204 (1919).
  584. Schenck v. S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
  585. Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 250 U.S. 363 (1919).
  586. Hebe Co. Shaw, 248 U.S. 297 (1919).
  587. Le Crone v. McAdoo, 253 U.S. 217 (1920).
  588. Henry v. U.S., 251 U.S. 393 (1920).
  589. South Coast S.S. Co. v. Rudbach, 251 U.S. 519 (1920).
  590. S. ex rel. Johnson v. Payne, 253 U.S. 209 (1920).
  591. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Speight, 254 U.S. 17 (1920).
  592. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U.S., 251 U.S. 385 (1920).
  593. Rock Island A. & L.R. Co. v. U.S., 254 U.S. 141 (1920).
  594. Fort Smith & W.R. Co. v. Mills, 253 U.S. 206 (1920).
  595. Rederiaktiebolaget Atlanten v. Aktieselskabet Korn-Og Foderstof Kompagniet, 252 U.S. 313 (1920).
  596. Johnson v. State of Maryland, 254 U.S. 51 (1920).
  597. Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. of America, 254 U.S. 143 (1920).
  598. People of State of New York ex rel. Troy Union R. Co. v. Mealy, 254 U.S. 47 (1920).
  599. Kenney v. Supreme Lodge of the World, Loyal Order of Moose, 252 U.S. 411 (1920).
  600. Birge-Forbes Co. v. Heye, 251 U.S. 317 (1920).
  601. Brooks-Scanlon Co. v. Railroad Commission of Louisiana, 251 U.S. 396 (1920).
  602. Fidelity Title & Trust Co. v. Dubois Electric Co., 253 U.S. 212 (1920).
  603. Rex v. S., 251 U.S. 382 (1920).
  604. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135 (1920).
  605. Smith Lumber Co. v. State of Arkansas ex rel. Arbuckle, 251 U.S. 532 (1920).
  606. Bates v. Dresser, 251 U.S. 524 (1920).
  607. Leary v. U.S. 253 U.S. 94 (1920).
  608. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 254 U.S. 96 (1920).
  609. State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920).
  610. International Bridge Co. v. People of State of New York, 254 U.S. 126 (1920).
  611. Wallace v. Hines, 253 U.S. 66 (1920).
  612. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Same N.Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co. v. Same Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Same, 251 U.S. 326 (1920).
  613. Manners v. Morosco, 252 U.S. 317 (1920).
  614. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. McCaullj-Dinsmore Co., 253 U.S. 97 (1920).
  615. Ex parte Riddle, 255 U.S. 450 (1921).
  616. Robert Mitchell Furniture Co. v. Selden Breck Const. Co., 257 U.S. 213 (1921).
  617. Panama R. Co. v. Pigott, 254 U.S. 552 (1921).
  618. Atwater v. Guernsey, 254 U.S. 423 (1921).
  619. Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman, 256 U.S. 170 (1921).
  620. Stark Bros. Nurseries & Orchards Co. v. Stark, 255 U.S. 50 (1921).
  621. Nickel v. Cole, 256 U.S. 222 (1921).
  622. Springfield Gas & Elec. Co. v. City of Springfield (1921).
  623. Hollis v. Kutz, 255 U.S. 452 (1921).
  624. Smietanka v. Indiana Steel Co., 257 U.S. 1 (1921).
  625. Brown v. U.S., 256 U.S. 335 (1921).
  626. United Fuel Gas Co. v. Hallanan, 257 U.S. 277 (1921).
  627. American Bank & Trust Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 256 U.S. 350 (1921).
  628. Curtis v. Connly, 257 U.S. 260 (1921).
  629. Southern Pac. Co. v. Berkshire, 254 U.S. 415 (1921).
  630. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. U.S., 256 U.S. 610 (1921).
  631. Silver King Coalition Mines Co. v. Conkling Mining Co., 255 U.S. 151 (1921).
  632. Alaska Fish Salting & By-Products Co. v. Smith, 255 U.S. 44 (1921).
  633. S. v. Coronado Beach Co., 255 U.S. 472 (1921).
  634. Erie R. v. Board of Public Utility Com’rs, 254 U.S. 394 (1921).
  635. Marine Ry. & Coal Co. v. U.S., 257 U.S. 47 (1921).
  636. Silver King Coalition Mines Co. Conkling Mining Co., 256 U.S. 18 (1921).
  637. New York Trust Co. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345 (1921).
  638. Bullock v. State of Florida ex rel. Railroad Commission of State of Florida, 254 U.S. 513 (1921).
  639. Central Union Trust Co. of New York v. Garvan, 254 U.S. 554 (1921).
  640. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Middlekamp, 256 U.S. 226 (1921).
  641. Eureka Pipe Line Co. v. Hallanan, 257 U.S. 265 (1921).
  642. Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135 (1921).
  643. John L. Whiting – J. J. Adams Co. v. Burrill, 258 U.S. 39 (1922).
  644. Forbes Pioneer Boat Line v. Board of Com’rs of Everglades Drainage Dist., 258 U.S. 338 (1922).
  645. Burrill v. Locomobile Co., 258 U.S. 34 (1922).
  646. New York Cent. & H.R.R. Co. v. Kinney, 260 U.S. 340 (1922).
  647. Pacific Mail S.S. Co. v. Lucas, 258 U.S. 266 (1922).
  648. Davis v. Green, 260 U.S. 349 (1922).
  649. Morrisdale Coal Co. v. U.S., 259 U.S. 188 (1922).
  650. Brown v. Thorn, 260 U.S. 137 (1922).
  651. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. v. U.S., 258 U.S. 32 (1922).
  652. McKee v. Gratz, 260 U.S. 127 (1922).
  653. Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U.S. 22 (1922).
  654. Knights v. Jackson, 260 U.S. 12 (1922).
  655. Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Base Ball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 (1922).
  656. First Nat. Bank v. J.L. Iron Works, 258 U.S. 240 (1922).
  657. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Liebing, 259 U.S. 209 (1922).
  658. Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co. v. U.S., 260 U.S. 125 (1922).
  659. Pine Hill Coal Co. U.S., 259 U.S. 191 (1922).
  660. Gillespie v. State of Oklahoma, 257 U.S. 501 (1922).
  661. Santa Fe Pac. R. Co. v. Payne, 259 U.S. 197 (1922).
  662. American Smelting & Refining Co. v. U.S., 259 U.S. 75 (1922).
  663. Levinson v. U.S., 258 U.S. 198 (1922).
  664. State of North Dakota ex rel. Lemke v. Chicago, N.W. Ry., Co., 257 U.S. 485 (1922).
  665. Louis Cotton Compress Co. v. State of Arkansas, 260 U.S. 346 (1922).
  666. Jones v. U.S., 258 U.S. 40 (1922).
  667. United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. Britt, 258 U.S. 268 (1922).
  668. Gooch v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 258 U.S. 22 (1922).
  669. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922).
  670. White Oak Transp. Co. v. Boston, Cape Cod & New York Canal Co., 258 U.S. 341 (1922).
  671. Grogan v. Hiram Walker & Sons, 259 U.S. 80 (1922).
  672. The Western Maid, 257 U.S. 419 (1922).
  673. Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. U.S., 260 U.S. 327 (1922).
  674. Sloan Shipyards Corp. U.S. Shipping Bd. Emergency Fleet Corp., 258 U.S. 549 (1922).
  675. Frese v. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co., 263 U.S. 1 (1923).
  676. Heyer v. Duplicator Mfg. Co., 263 U.S. 100 (1923).
  677. Fox Film Corporation v. Knowles, 261 U.S. 326 (1923).
  678. National Ass’n of Window Glass Mfs. v. U.S., 263 U.S. 403 (1923).
  679. Bianchi v. Morales, 262 U.S. 170 (1923).
  680. Hart v. B.F. Keith Vaudeville Exch., 262 U.S. 271 (1923).
  681. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans v. Crosland, 261 U.S. 374 (1923).
  682. Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel, 260 U.S. 689 (1923).
  683. Leigh Ellis & Co. v. Davis, 260 U.S. 682 (1923).
  684. Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22 (1923).
  685. G. Spalding & Bros. v. Edwards, 262 U.S. 66 (1923).
  686. Diaz A. v. Patterson, 263 U.S. 399 (1923).
  687. Ewen v. American Fidelity Co., 261 U.S. 322 (1923).
  688. Hill v. Smith, 260 U.S. 592 (1923).
  689. S. v. Sischo, 262 U.S. 165 (1923).
  690. Stevens v. Arnold, 262 U.S. 266 (1923).
  691. S. v. Carver, 260 U.S. 482 (1923).
  692. Galveston Wharf Co. v. City of Galveston, 260 U.S. 473 (1923).
  693. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Russell, 261 U.S. 290 (1923).
  694. New Orleans Land Co. v. Brott, 263 U.S. 97 (1923).
  695. Gardner v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 261 U.S. 453 (1923).
  696. American Ry. Express Co. v. Levee, 263 U.S. 19 (1923).
  697. S. Grain Corporation v. Phillips, 261 U.S. 106 (1923).
  698. People ex rel. Clyde v. Gilchrist, 262 U.S. 94 (1923).
  699. S. v. Walter, 263 U.S. 15 (1923).
  700. Diaz v. Gonzalez, 261 U.S. 102 (1923).
  701. Clallam County, Wash., v. U.S., 263 U.S. 341 (1923).
  702. S. v. Stafoff, 260 U.S. 477 (1923).
  703. Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923).
  704. Hester v. U.S., 265 U.S. 57 (1924).
  705. Davis v. Kennedy, 266 U.S. 147 (1924).
  706. Love v. Griffith, 266 U.S. 32 (1924).
  707. Queen Ins. Co. of America v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 263 U.S. 487 (1924).
  708. Avent v. U.S., 266 U.S. 127 (1924).
  709. New York, Philadelpha & Norfolk Telegraph Co. Dolan, 265 U.S. 96 (1924).
  710. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Osborne, 265 U.S. 14 (1924).
  711. Wilson v. Illinois Southern Ry. Co., 263 U.S. 574 (1924).
  712. S. v. Weissman, 266 U.S. 377 (1924).
  713. Electric Boat Co. v. U.S., 263 U.S. 621 (1924).
  714. Edwards v. Slocum, 264 U.S. 61 (1924).
  715. Mackenzie v. A. Engelhard & Sons Co., 266 U.S. 131 (1924).
  716. W. Duckett & Co. v. U.S., 266 U.S. 149 (1924).
  717. Fernandez & Bros. v. Ayllon, 266 U.S. 144 (1924).
  718. S. v. New York Cent. R. Co., 263 U.S. 603 (1924).
  719. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Czizek, 264 U.S. 281 (1924).
  720. In re East River Towing Co., 266 U.S. 355 (1924).
  721. Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, 264 U.S. 359 (1924).
  722. Dillingham v. McLaughlin, 264 U.S. 370 (1924).
  723. Chastleton Corp. v. Sinclair, 264 U.S. 543 (1924).
  724. Davis v. Corona Coal Co., 265 U.S. 219 (1924).
  725. People of State of New York v. Jersawit, 263 U.S. 493 (1924).
  726. City of Opelika v. Opelika Sewer Co., 265 U.S. 215 (1924).
  727. S. v. The Thekla, 266 U.S. 328 (1924).
  728. Federal Trade Commission v. American Tobacco Co., 264 U.S. 298 (1924).
  729. S. ex rel. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 264 U.S. 64 (1924).
  730. State of Missouri ex rel. Burnes Nat. Bank of St. Joseph v. Duncan, 265 U.S. 17 (1924).
  731. Stein v. Tip-Top Baking Co., 267 U.S. 226 (1925).
  732. American Ry. Express Co. v. Daniel, 269 U.S. 40 (1925).
  733. Southern Utilities Co. v. City of Palatka, Fla., 268 U.S. 232 (1925).
  734. Lee v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 267 U.S. 542 (1925).
  735. S. v. The Coamo, 267 U.S. 220 (1925).
  736. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. U.S., 269 U.S. 266 (1925).
  737. Hicks v. Guinness, 269 U.S. 71 (1925).
  738. Yeiser v. Dysart, 267 U.S. 540 (1925).
  739. Lederer v. Fidelity Trust Co., 267 U.S. 17 (1925).
  740. S. v. P. Lorillard Co., 267 U.S. 471 (1925).
  741. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey U.S., 267 U.S. 76 (1925).
  742. Druggan v. Anderson, 269 U.S. 36 (1925).
  743. Direction der Disconto-Gesellschaft v. U.S. Steel Corporation, 267 U.S. 22 (1925).
  744. Lewellyn v. Frick, 268 U.S. 238 (1925).
  745. S. Fidelty & Guaranty Co. v. Wooldridge, 268 U.S. 234 (1925).
  746. S. v. Johnson, 268 U.S. 220 (1925).
  747. Modern Woodmen of America v. Mixer, 267 U.S. 544 (1925).
  748. Olson v. U.S. Spruce Production Corporation, 267 U.S. 462 (1925).
  749. Pacific American Fisheries v. Territory of Alaska, 269 U.S. 269 (1925).
  750. Cami v. Central Victoria, 268 U.S. 469 (1925).
  751. Guardian Savings & Trust Co. v. Road Improvement Dist. No. 7 of Poinsett County, Ark., 267 U.S. 1 (1925).
  752. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. State of Georgia, 269 U.S. 67 (1925).
  753. Flanagan v. Federal Coal Co., 267 U.S. 222 (1925).
  754. Smith Spelter Co. v. Clear Creek Oil & Gas Co., 267 U.S. 231 (1925).
  755. Old Dominion Land Co. v. U.S., 269 U.S. 55 (1925).
  756. Kaplan v. Tod, 267 U.S. 228 (1925).
  757. State of Colorado v. Toll, 268 U.S. 228 (1925).
  758. Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311 (1925).
  759. Davis v. Pringle, 268 U.S. 315 (1925).
  760. Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161 (1925).
  761. White v. Mechanics’ Securities Corporation, 269 U.S. 283 (1925).
  762. Sanitary Dist. of Chicago v. U.S., 266 U.S. 405 (1925).
  763. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Nixon, 271 U.S. 218 (1926).
  764. International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 272 U.S. 50 (1926).
  765. Mandelbaum v. U.S., 270 U.S. 7 (1926).
  766. New York Cent. R. Co. v. New York & Pennsylvania Co., 271 U.S. 124 (1926).
  767. Ashe v. S. ex rel. Valotta, 270 U.S. 424 (1926).
  768. S. v. Robbins, 269 U.S. 315 (1926).
  769. Massachusetts State Grange v. Benton, 272 U.S. 525 (1926).
  770. Dodge v. U.S., 272 U.S. 530 (1926).
  771. Murphy v. U.S., 272 U.S. 630 (1926).
  772. White v. U.S., 270 U.S. 175 (1926).
  773. E. Crook Co. v. U.S., 270 U.S. 4 (1926).
  774. Liberato v. Royer, 270 U.S. 535 (1926).
  775. Edwards v. Chile Copper Co., 270 U.S. 452 (1926).
  776. S. v. Storrs, 272 U.S. 652 (1926).
  777. Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Tafoya, 270 U.S. 426 (1926).
  778. S. v. National Exchange Bank of Baltimore, Md., 270 U.S. 527 (1926).
  779. Die Deutsche Bank Filiale Nurnberg v. Humphrey, 272 U.S. 517 (1926).
  780. S. ex rel. Hughes v. Gault, 271 U.S. 142 (1926).
  781. Cole v. Norborne Land Drainage Dist. of Carroll County, Mo., 270 U.S. 45 (1926).
  782. H. Hassler, Inc. v. Shaw, 271 U.S. 195 (1926).
  783. Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co., 270 U.S. 390 (1926).
  784. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co. The Northern Star, 271 U.S. 552 (1926).
  785. Palmetto Fire Ins. Co. v. Conn., 272 U.S. 295 (1926).
  786. Sacco v. Hendry, 1927 WL 27839 (1927).[1]
  787. Mercantile Trust Co. of St. Louis, Mo. v. Wilmot Road Dist., 275 U.S. 117 (1927).
  788. B. Leach & Co. v. Peirson, 275 U.S. 120 (1927).
  789. Zimmerman v. Sutherland, 274 U.S. 253 (1927).
  790. Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Goodman, 275 U.S. 66 (1927).
  791. Sacco v. Massachusetts, 1927 WL 27838 (1927).[2]
  792. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Southwell, 275 U.S. 64 (1927).
  793. S. v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927).
  794. Simmons v. Swan, 275 U.S. 113 (1927).
  795. S. v. Alford, 274 U.S. 264 (1927).
  796. Shukert v. Allen, 273 U.S. 545 (1927).
  797. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint, 275 U.S. 303 (1927).
  798. Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).
  799. Empire Trust Co. v. Cahan, 274 U.S. 473 (1927).
  800. Jones v. Prairie Oil & Gas Co., 273 U.S. 195 (1927).
  801. Smallwood v. Gallardo, 275 U.S. 56 (1927).
  802. Biddle v. Perovich, 274 U.S. 480 (1927).
  803. Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536 (1927).
  804. Gallardo v. Santini Fertilizer Co., 275 U.S. 62 (1927).
  805. Miller v. City of Milwaukee, 272 U.S. 713 (1927).
  806. Railroad and Warehouse Com’n of Minn. v. Duluth St. Ry. Co., 273 U.S. 625 (1927).
  807. Ingenohl v. Walter E. Olsen & Co., 273 U.S. 541 (1927).
  808. S. v. Ritterman, 273 U.S. 261 (1927).
  809. Mosler Safe Co. v. Ely-Norris Safe Co., 273 U.S. 132 (1927).
  810. Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U.S. 142 (1927).
  811. Beech-Nut Packing Co. v. P. Lorillard Co., 273 U.S. 629 (1927).
  812. Westfall v. U.S., 274 U.S. 256 (1927).
  813. Emmons Coal Mining Co. v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 272 U.S. 709 (1927).
  814. S. v. Freights, etc., of the Mount Shasta, 274 U.S. 466 (1927).
  815. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Leitch, 276 U.S. 429 (1928).
  816. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Jones, 276 U.S. 303 (1928).
  817. Mitchell v. Hampel, 276 U.S. 299 (1928).
  818. Finance & Guaranty Co. v. Oppenhimer, 276 U.S. 10 (1928).
  819. Brooke v. City of Norfolk, 277 U.S. 27 (1928).
  820. Coffin Bros. & Co. v. Bennett, 277 U.S. 29 (1928).
  821. P. Larson, Jr., Co. v. Wm. Wrigley, Jr., Co., 277 U.S. 97 (1928).
  822. Levy v. Industrial Finance Corp., 276 U.S. 281 (1928).
  823. Unadilla Valley Ry. Co. v. Caldine, 278 U.S. 139 (1928).
  824. Ferry v. Ramsey, 277 U.S. 88 (1928).
  825. S. v. Cambridge Loan & Building Co., 278 U.S. 55 (1928).
  826. Maney v. U.S., 278 U.S. 17 (1928).
  827. S. v. Lenson, 278 U.S. 60 (1928).
  828. Delaware, L. & W.R. Co. v. Rellstab, 276 U.S. 1 (1928).
  829. Equitable Trust Co. of New York v. First Nat. Bank, 275 U.S. 359 (1928).
  830. Casey v. U.S., 276 U.S. 413 (1928).
  831. Boston Sand & Gravel Co. U.S., 278 U.S. 41 (1928).
  832. Roschen v. Ward, 279 U.S. 337 (1929).
  833. Flink v. Paladini, 279 U.S. 59 (1929).
  834. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. White, 278 U.S. 456 (1929).
  835. Hobbs v. Pollock, 280 U.S. 168 (1929).
  836. S. v. American Livestock Com’n Co., 279 U.S. 435 (1929).
  837. S. v. New York Cent. R. Co., 279 U.S. 73 (1929).
  838. Ithaca Trust Co. v. U.S., 279 U.S. 151 (1929).
  839. Wheeler v. Greene, 280 U.S. 49 (1929).
  840. S. Printing & Lithograph Co. v. Griggs, Cooper & Co., 279 U.S. 156 (1929).
  841. Becher v. Contoure Laboratories, 279 U.S. 388 (1929).
  842. Lash’s Products Co. v. U.S., 278 U.S. 175 (1929).
  843. Douglas v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 279 U.S. 377 (1929).
  844. S. v. Commonwealth & Dominion Line, 278 U.S. 427 (1929).
  845. Weiss v. Wiener, 279 U.S. 333 (1929).
  846. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Bryant, 280 U.S. 404 (1930).
  847. Clarke v. Haberle Crystal Springs Brewing Co., 280 U.S. 384 (1930).
  848. Renziehausen v. Lucas, 280 U.S. 387 (1930).
  849. Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930).
  850. Barker Painting Co. v. Local No. 734, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators, and Paperhangers of America, 281 U.S. 462 (1930).
  851. Danovitz v. United States, 281 U.S. 389 (1930).
  852. Minerals Separation North American Corp. v. Magma Copper Co., 280 U.S. 400 (1930).
  853. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephne Co. v. U.S., 281 U.S. 385 (1930).
  854. Superior Oil Co. State of Mississippi ex rel. Knox, 280 U.S. 390 (1930).
  855. Sherman v. U.S., 282 U.S. 25 (1930).
  856. S. v. Abrams, 281 U.S. 202 (1930).
  857. Lektophone Corporation v. Rola Co., 282 U.S. 168 (1930).
  858. S. v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396 (1930).
  859. Corliss v. Bowers, 281 U.S. 376 (1930).
  860. Klein v. Board of Tax Sup’rs of Jefferson County, Ky., 282 U.S. 19 (1930).
  861. Eliason v. Wilborn, 281 U.S. 457 (1930).
  862. Wabash Ry. Co. v. Barclay, 280 U.S. 197 (1930).
  863. Escher v. Woods, 281 U.S. 379 (1930).
  864. State of Wisconsin v. State of Illinois, 281 U.S. 179 (1930).
  865. State of Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379 (1930).
  866. Early v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 281 U.S. 84 (1930).
  867. United States of America ex rel. Costas Cateches v. Day, 283 U.S. 51 (1931).
  868. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Powe, 283 U.S. 401 (1931).
  869. S. v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 (1931).
  870. Carr v. Zaja, 283 U.S. 52 (1931).
  871. Bain Peanut Co. of Tex. v. Pinson, 282 U.S. 499 (1931).
  872. Flynn v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 283 U.S. 53 (1931).
  873. Southern Ry. v. Hussey, 283 U.S. 136 (1931).
  874. Eckert v. Burnet, 283 U.S. 140 (1931).
  875. Moore v. Bay, 284 U.S. 4 (1931).
  876. Burnet v. Willingham Loan & Trust Co., 282 U.S. 437 (1931).
  877. Railway Express Agency v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 282 U.S. 440 (1931).
  878. Frank L. Young Co. v. McNeal-Edwards Co., 283 U.S. 398 (1931).
  879. Northport Power & Light Co. v. Hartley, 283 U.S. 568 (1931).
  880. Waite v. U.S., 282 U.S. 508 (1931).
  881. Uravic v. Jarka Co., 282 U.S. 234 (1931).
  882. Smooth Sand & Gravel Corporation v. Washington Airport, 283 U.S. 348 (1931).
  883. Philippides v. Day, 283 U.S. 48 (1931).
  884. McBoyle v. U.S., 283 U.S. 25 (1931).
  885. State of Alabama v. U.S., 282 U.S. 502 (1931).
  886. State Tax Commission of Mississippi v. Interstate Natural Gas Co., 284 U.S. 41 (1931).
  887. International Paper Co. v. U.S., 282 U.S. 399 (1931).
  888. State of New Jersey v. State of New York, 283 U.S. 336 (1931).
  889. S. ex rel. Polymeris v. Trudell, 284 U.S. 279 (1932).
  890. Dunn v. U.S., 284 U.S. 390 (1932).

 

[1] This case was not reported in the United States Supreme Court Reports; therefore, only the Westlaw citation is available.

 

[2] This case was not reported in the United States Supreme Court Reports; therefore, only the Westlaw citation is available.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Boswell Gets His Due

In Arts & Letters, Book Reviews, Books, British Literature, Christianity, History, Humanities, Literary Theory & Criticism, Literature, Scholarship, Western Civilization, Writing on August 19, 2015 at 8:45 am

Allen 2

This review originally appeared here in Liberty.

What is Enlightenment? The title of Immanuel Kant’s most famous essay asks that question. Kant suggests that the historical Enlightenment was mankind’s release from his self-incurred tutelage, an intellectual awakening that opened up new freedoms by challenging implanted prejudices and ingrained presuppositions. “Sapere aude!” Kant declared. “Dare to be wise!”

Tradition maintains that the Enlightenment was an 18th-century social and cultural phenomenon emanating from Paris salons, an Age of Reason that championed the primacy of the individual, the individual’s competence to pursue knowledge through rational and empirical methods, through skepticism and the scientific method. Discourse, debate, experimentation, and economic liberalism would liberate society from the shackles of superstition and dogma and enable unlimited progress and technological innovation, offering fresh insights into the universal laws that governed not only the natural world but also human relations. They would also enable individual people to attain fresh insights into themselves.

Boswell was a garrulous charmer with Bacchanalian tendencies, and a fussy hypochondriac raised Calvinist and forever anxious, perhaps obsessive, about the uncertain state of his eternal soul.

Robert Zaretsky, a history professor at the University of Houston and the author of Boswell’s Enlightenment, spares us tiresome critiques or defenses of the Enlightenment by Foucault and Habermas and their progeny. He begins his biography of James Boswell, the great 18th-century biographer, with a historiographical essay on the trends and trajectories of the pertinent scholarship. He points out that the Enlightenment may have begun earlier than people once believed, and in England rather than France. He mentions Jonathan Israel’s suggestion that we look to Spinoza and company, not Voltaire and company, to understand the Enlightenment, and that too much work has focused on the influence of affluent thinkers, excluding lower-class proselytizers who spread the message of liberty with a fearsome frankness and fervor. And he maintains that Scotland was the ideational epicenter of Enlightenment. Boswell was a Scot.

All of this is academic backdrop and illustrative posturing, a setting of the stage for Zaretsky’s subject, Boswell, a lawyer and man of letters with an impressive pedigree and a nervous disposition, a garrulous charmer with Bacchanalian tendencies, and a fussy hypochondriac raised Calvinist and forever anxious, perhaps obsessive, about the uncertain state of his eternal soul. He marveled at public executions, which he attended regularly. He also had daddy issues, always trying to please his unpleased father, Lord Auchinleck, who instructed his son to pursue the law rather than the theater and thespians. When word arrived that his son had been sharing his private journals with the public, Lord Auchinleck threatened to disown the young James.

Astounded by the beauty and splendor of Rome and entranced by Catholicism, Boswell was never able to untangle the disparate religious influences (all of them Christian) that he picked up during his travels. He was equally unable to suppress eros and consequently caught sexual diseases as a frog catches flies.

Although the Life of Johnson is always considered one of the most important books in the language, Boswell himself has been relegated to the second or third tier of the British literary canon.

Geography and culture shaped Boswell’s ideas and personality and frame Zaretsky’s narrative. “With the European continent to one side, Edinburgh to the other,” Zaretsky intones, “James Boswell stood above what seemed the one and the same phenomenon: the Enlightenment.” This remark is both figurative and literal, concluding Zaretsky’s account of Boswell’s climbing of Arthur’s Seat, a summit overlooking Edinburgh, and his triumphant shout, “Voltaire, Rousseau, immortal names!”

Immortal names indeed. But would Boswell himself achieve immortality? Boswell achieved fame for his biography of Samuel Johnson, the poet, critic, essayist, and wit — who except for one chapter is oddly ancillary to Zaretsky’s narrative. Although the Life of Johnson is always considered one of the most important books in the language, Boswell himself has been relegated to the second or third tier of the British literary canon and treated, poor chap, as a celebrity-seeking minor figure who specialized in the life of a major figure. If Dr. Johnson is Batman, Boswell is a hobnobbing, flattering Robin.

Boswell’s friends have fared better — countrymen and mentors such as Adam Smith and David Hume, for instance, and the continental luminaries Voltaire and Rousseau. But there are many interesting relationships here. To cite only one: Thérèse Levasseur, Rousseau’s wife or mistress (a topic of debate), became Boswell’s lover as he accompanied her from Paris to England. The unsuspecting Rousseau, exiled in England, waited eagerly for her arrival, while a more astute Hume, who was Rousseau’s host, recognized matters for what they were.

Zaretsky believes Boswell was an exceptional talent, notwithstanding his weaknesses, and certainly worthy of our attention. Glossing several periods of Boswell’s life but closely examining his grand tour of the Continent (1763–1765), Zaretsky elevates Boswell’s station, repairs Boswell’s literary reputation, and corrects a longstanding underestimation, calling attention to his complicated and curious relationship to the Enlightenment, a movement or milieu that engulfed him without necessarily defining him.

The title of the book assumes plural meaning: Boswell attained a self-enlightenment that reflected the ethos and ethic of his era.

Zaretsky’s large claims for his subject might seem belied by the author’s professedly modest goal: “to place Boswell’s tour of the Continent, and situate the churn of his mind, against the intellectual and political backdrop of the Enlightenment.” To this end, Zaretsky remarks, “James Boswell and the Enlightenment are as complex as the coils of wynds and streets forming the old town of Edinburgh.” And so they are, as Zaretsky makes manifest in ten digestible chapters bristling with the animated, ambulatory prose of the old style of literary and historical criticism, the kind that English professors disdain but educated readers enjoy and appreciate.

Zaretsky marshals his evidence from Boswell’s meticulously detailed missives and journals, piecing together a fluid tale of adventure (meetings with the exiled libertine John Wilkes, evenings with prostitutes, debauchery across Europe, and lots of drinking) and resultant misadventure (aimlessness, dishonor, bouts of gonorrhea and depression, and religious angst). Zaretsky portrays Boswell as a habitual performer, a genteel, polite, and proud socialite who judged himself as he imagined others to have judged him. He suffered from melancholy and the clap, among other things, but he also cultivated a gentlemanly air and pursued knowledge for its own sake. The title of the book, Boswell’s Enlightenment, assumes plural meaning: Boswell attained a self-enlightenment that reflected the ethos and ethic of his era.

Zaretsky’s book matters because Boswell matters, and, in Zaretsky’s words, “Boswell matters not because his mind was as original or creative as the men and women he pursued, but because his struggle to make sense of his life, to bend his person to certain philosophical ends, appeals to our own needs and sensibilities.” We see ourselves in Boswell, in his alternating states of faith and doubt, devotion and reason. He, like so many of us, sought to improve himself daily but could never live up to his own expectations. He’s likeable because he’s fallible, a pious sinner who did right in the name of wrong and wrong in the name of right, but without any ill intent. A neurotic, rotten mess, he couldn’t control his libido and didn’t learn from his mistakes. But he could write like the wind, and we’re better off because he did. He knew all of us, strangely, without having known us. God help us, we’re all like him in some way.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Harold Bloom’s American Sublime

In Academia, America, American Literature, Art, Artist, Arts & Letters, Book Reviews, Books, Creativity, Emerson, Fiction, History, Humanities, Literary Theory & Criticism, Literature, Nineteenth-Century America, Novels, Philosophy, Poetry, Rhetoric, Scholarship, The Novel, Western Civilization, Western Philosophy, Writing on August 12, 2015 at 8:45 am

Allen 2

This review originally appeared here in the American Conservative.

What can be said about Harold Bloom that hasn’t been said already? The Yale professor is a controversial visionary, a polarizing seer who has been recycling and reformulating parallel theories of creativity and influence, with slightly different foci and inflections, for his entire career, never seeming tiresome or repetitive. He demonstrates what is manifestly true about the best literary critics: they are as much artists as the subjects they undertake.

Bloom’s criticism is characterized by sonorous, cadenced, almost haunting prose, by an exacting judgment and expansive imagination, and by a painful, sagacious sensitivity to the complexities of human behavior and psychology. He is a discerning Romantic in an age of banality and distraction, in a culture of proud illiteracy and historical unawareness. Bloom reminds us that to be faithful to tradition is to rework it, to keep it alive, and that tradition and innovation are yoked pairs, necessarily dependent on one another.

Bloom has been cultivating the image and reputation of a prophet or mystic for decades. His stalwart defense of the Western canon is well known but widely misunderstood. His descriptive account is that the canon is fluid, not fixed—open, not closed. It might be stable, but it’s not unchangeable. The literary canon is the product of evolution, a collection of the fittest works that have been selectively retained, surviving the onslaught of relentless competition.

Bloom’s prescriptive position is that, because human agency is a controllable factor in this agnostic filtering process, serious readers can and should ensure that masterpieces, those stirring products of original, even genius minds, are retained, and that the latest works are held to the highest aesthetic standards, which are themselves established and proven by revisionary struggle. The merit of a work is not found in the identity of its author—his or her race, gender, or sexuality—but in the text proper, in the forms and qualities of the work itself.

Bloom’s latest book, The Daemon Knows: Literary Greatness and the American Sublime, examines ambitious and representative American authors, its chapters organized by curious pairings: Whitman with Melville (the “Giant Forms” of American literature), Emerson with Dickinson (the Sage of Concord is Dickinson’s “closest imaginative father”), Hawthorne with Henry James (a relation “of direct influence”), Twain with Frost (“our only great masters with popular audiences”), Stevens with Eliot (“an intricate interlocking” developed through antithetical competition), and Faulkner with Crane (“each forces the American language to its limits”). This mostly male cast, a dozen progenitors of the American sublime, is not meant to constitute a national canon. For that, Bloom avers in his introduction, he envisions alternative selections, including more women: Edith Wharton, Willa Cather, Marianne Moore, and Flannery O’Connor. Bloom’s chosen 12 represent, instead, “our incessant effort to transcend the human without forsaking humanism.” These writers have in common a “receptivity to daemonic influx.” “What lies beyond the human for nearly all of these writers,” Bloom explains, “is the daemon.”

What is this daemon, you ask. As always, Bloom is short on definition, embracing the constructive obscurity—the aesthetic vagueness—that Richard Poirier celebrated in Emerson and William James and Robert Frost, Bloom’s predecessors. Bloom implies that calling the “daemon” an idea is too limiting; the word defies ready explanation or summation.

The daemon, as I read it, is an amorphous and spiritual source of quasi-divine inspiration and influence, the spark of transitional creative powers; it’s akin to shamanism, and endeavors to transcend, move beyond, and surpass. Its opposite is stasis, repose. “Daemons divide up divine power and are in perpetual movement from their supernal heights to us,” Bloom remarks in one of his more superlative moments. “They bring down messages,” he intones, “each day’s news of the metamorphic meanings of the division between our mundane shell and the upper world.”

What, you might ask in follow up, is the American sublime that it should stand in marked contrast to the European tradition, rupturing the great chain of influence, revealing troublesome textual discontinuities and making gaps of influence that even two poets can pass abreast? “Simplistically,” Bloom submits, “the sublime in literature has been associated with peak experiences that render a secular version of a theophany: a sense of something interfused that transforms a natural moment, landscape, action, or countenance.” This isn’t quite Edmund Burke’s definition, but it does evoke the numinous, what Bloom calls, following Burke, “an excursion into the psychological origins of aesthetic magnificence.”

The Daemon Knows is part memoir, a recounting of a lifetime spent with books. There are accounts of Robert Penn Warren, Leslie Fiedler, and Cleanth Brooks. Bloom’s former students and mentors also make brief appearances: Kenneth Burke, for instance, and Camille Paglia. And Bloom doesn’t just analyze, say, Moby Dick—he narrates about his first encounter with that book back in the summer of 1940. He later asserts, “I began reading Hart Crane in the library on my tenth birthday.” That he remembers these experiences at all speaks volumes to Melville’s and Crane’s bewitching facility and to Bloom’s remarkable receptivity.

Bloom has not shied away from his signature and grandiose ahistorical pronouncements, perhaps because they’re right. Melville, for instance, is “the most Shakespearean of our authors,” an “American High Romantic, a Shelleyan divided between head and heart, who held against Emerson the sage’s supposed deficiency in the region of the heart.” Or, “Emersonian idealism was rejected by Whitman in favor of Lucretian materialism, itself not compatible with Indian speculations.” Or, “Stevens received from Whitman the Emersonian conviction that poetry imparts wisdom as well as pleasure.” These generalizations would seem to service hagiography, but even if they’re overstatement, are they wrong?

My professors in graduate school, many of them anyway, chastised Bloom and dubbed him variously a reactionary, a racist, a misogynist, a bigot, or a simpleton; they discouraged his presence in my essays and papers, laughing him out of classroom conversation and dismissing his theories out-of-hand. Or else, stubbornly refusing to assess his theories on their own terms, they judged the theories in the light of their results: the theories were bad because certain authors, the allegedly privileged ones, came out on top, as they always have. This left little room for newcomers, for egalitarian fads and fashions, and discredited (or at least undermined) the supposedly noble project of literary affirmative action.

They will be forgotten, these dismissive pedants of the academy, having contributed nothing of lasting value to the economy of letters, while Bloom will live on, continuing to shock and upset his readers, forcing them to second-guess their judgments and tastes, their criteria for aesthetic value, challenging their received assumptions and thumping them over the head with inconvenient facts and radical common sense. The school of resentment and amateurish cultural studies, appropriate targets of Bloom’s learned animus, will die an inglorious death, as dogmatic political hermeneutics cannot withstand the test of time.

Bloom, on the other hand, like his subjects, taps his inner daemon, invokes it and rides it where it travels, struggles against the anxiety of influence and displays all of the rhetorical power and play of the strong poets he worships. Dr. Samuel Johnson and Northrop Frye reverberate throughout his capacious tome, and for that matter his entire oeuvre. Bloom’s psychic brooding becomes our own, if we read him pensively, and we are better off for it.

Those who view literary study as a profession requiring specialized and technical training, who chase tenure and peer approval, publishing in academic journals and gaining no wider audience than groveling colleagues, do not possess the originality, the foresight, or the brute imagination necessary to achieve enduring appeal. Reading, done right, is a profoundly personal activity, an exercise in solitary contemplation and possible revelation; writing, done right, is transference: the redirection of complex states of consciousness and knowing from one person to another. A few sentences of Bloom’s contemplative questioning, such as the following, are worth the weight of whole academic articles: “At eighty-four I wonder why poems in particular obsessed me from childhood onward. Because I had an overemotional sensibility, I tended to need more affection from my parents and sisters than even they could sustain. From the age of ten on, I sought from Moyshe-Leyb Halpern and Hart Crane, from Shakespeare and Shelley, the strong affect I seemed to need from answering voices.” Here Bloom invites Freudian investigation of himself, summoning the psychoanalytic models he uses on others.

Bloom is now 85. He claims to have another book left in him, making this one his penultimate. His awesome and dedicated engagement with the best that has been thought and known in the world appears to have left him unafraid of the finish, of what comes next, as though literary intimacy and understanding have prepared him, equipped him, for the ultimate. It seems fitting, then, to quote him on this score and to end with a musing on the end: “We are at least bequeathed to an earthly shore and seek memorial inscriptions, fragments heaped against our ruins: an interval and then we are gone. High literature endeavors to augment that span: My twelve authors center, for me, that proliferation of consciousness by which we go on living and finding our own sense of being.”

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Review of Adam Zamoyski’s Phantom Terror

In Arts & Letters, Books, Historicism, History, Humanities, Law, Libertarianism, Literary Theory & Criticism, Philosophy, Western Civilization, Western Philosophy on July 22, 2015 at 8:45 am

Allen 2

This review first appeared here in Taki’s Magazine.

Born in America and raised in Britain, Adam Zamoyski is not a tenured university professor devoted to obscure subjects that appeal only to audiences of academic guilds. Nor does he write for a small readership. That’s why his books sell and his prose excites; he can narrate a compelling account while carrying an insightful thesis. His latest book, Phantom Terror, bears a subtitle that will cause libertarian ears to perk up: “Political Paranoia and the Creation of the Modern State, 1789-1848.”

Challenging the validity of modern states and their various arms and agencies is the daily diet of committed libertarians, but Zamoyski is not, to my knowledge, a libertarian of any stripe. Yet he challenges the modern State and its various arms and agencies, whatever his intentions or beliefs, and he refuses to shut his eyes to the predatory behavior of government. To appreciate the goals of his book, one must first understand how he came to his subject.

The story is simple: While researching, Zamoyski uncovered data suggesting that governments in the decades following the French Revolution deliberately incited panic among their citizens to validate increasingly restrictive policies. The more governments regulated and circumscribed individual freedoms, the more they took on the shape of nation states: geopolitical entities that had their roots in 16th- and 17th- century Europe but had not fully centralized.

If there’s a main character here, it’s Napoleon Bonaparte. Zamoyski has written about Napoleon in previous books, including 1812: Napoleon’s Fatal March on Moscow (2005) and Rites of Peace: The Fall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna (2008). Having escaped from exile in Elba in February 1815 and suffered defeat at the Battle of Waterloo later that year, Napoleon, once the Emperor of the French, had been reduced to the status of a prisoner, stripped of his dignity and rendered militarily ineffective, his health quickly declining.

Tsar Alexander of Russia, seeing the great Napoleon neutralized, called for a holy covenant with Emperor Francis I of Austria and King Frederick William III of Prussia. For Alexander, who envisioned the State as the realization of a divine idea, the three united rulers reflected the trinitarian Christian God from whom their autocratic, quasi-sacred powers derived. Alexander believed that the unsettling of tradition and order during the French Revolution could be counteracted or cured by the systematic institutionalization of despotic government. First, though, the masses needed to be instructed in the manifest nature of revolutionary threats lurking behind every corner, in every neighborhood, among friends and family, in unexpected places.

And then came the police, a new body of official agents vested with administrative powers and decorated with the symbols and insignias of authority.  Until then the term “police,” or its rough equivalent in other European languages, designated minor officials with localized duties over small public spaces. European states lacked the administrative machinery of a centralized enforcement network besides the military, whose function was to conquer foreign territory or defend the homeland, not to guard the comfort, health, and morals of communities in disparate towns and villages. The latter task was for parochial institutions, custom, churches, nobility, and other configurations of local leadership.

In the wake of the French Revolution, with its ritualistic brutality, mass hysteria, and spectacular regicide, sovereigns and subjects began to accept and support the power of centralized governments to deploy political agents, including spies and informers.  According to Zamoyski, the growing police force—secret agents and all—was less interested in basic hygiene, sanitation, and safety and more interested in subverting the political clout and conspiratorial tendencies of local nobility.

To maximize their power, emperors and government ministers gave color to grand falsehoods about their weakness. Only in their exaggerated vulnerability, catalyzed by true and imagined Jacobins, Freemasons, Illuminati, and other such bugaboos, could they exercise their strength.  Seizing upon anxieties about civil unrest, rulers cultivated in their subjects a desire for police protection, supervision, and surveillance. Conspiracy theories worked in their favor. Francis ordered his police to be vigilant about the spread of Enlightenment ideas; he enacted censorship measures by which people disciplined themselves into obedience, leaving the police to serve, often, as mere symbols of control.

Zamoyski does not focus on any one state but moves from city to city, leader to leader, depicting how European governments staged rebellion for their own benefit.  Several individuals figure prominently for their different roles during this turbulent time: Edmund Burke; Empress Catharine II of Russia; William Pitt; Klemens von Metternich; King Ferdinand VII of Spain; King Louis Philippe; Arthur Wellesley, the First Duke of Wellington; Charles Maurice de Talleyrand; Robert Steward, Viscount Castlereagh; Joseph Fouché, and marginal characters both stupid and intelligent, of high and low station.

Eventually repression and tyranny backfired. The State apparatus and its leaders across Europe adopted the very tactics and practices they feared in their opposition; they became the kind of terrorists they had attempted to crush. By transforming into their own worst nightmare, they brought about the revolutions (e.g., the Revolutions of 1848) they meant to avoid and inspired the movements they intended to eradicate.

Entrapment, espionage, propaganda, tyranny, sedition, secrecy, conspiracy, treachery, reaction, regime—it’s all here, and it reveals that the operations of power are counterintuitive and complex, even if they’re logical. Hesitant to draw parallels with our present managerial nation states and their version of authoritarian rule, Zamoyski nevertheless marshals enough evidence and insinuation to make speculation about the current order inevitable.

There’s the shadow of Foucault in the background: Zamoyski portrays power as dependent on its lack, exploring how those with authority allow certain freedoms to then suppress them. There’s no power that’s not power over something. Permitting only such personal autonomy and agency as could be subdued enabled European governments to put their authority on display. States manufacture resistance to exercise—indeed show off—their muscle.

With their sprightliness these chapters win for themselves a certain charm. Zamoyski has not just recounted the sequence of events during a fascinating era but exposited an exciting theory about them and the forces driving them. It’s too soon to understand the logic behind the rumors, and the disinformation, we know world powers spread today. Zamoyski provides no direction to this end. He does, however, use history to awaken our imagination to the workings of global power structures, forcing us to ask questions and seek answers about the phantoms of terror that continue to haunt us.

, , , ,

Review of “A Late Encounter With the Civil War,” by Michael Kreyling

In American History, Arts & Letters, Book Reviews, Books, Historicism, History, Humanities, Nineteenth-Century America, Scholarship, Southern History, Southern Literary Review, The South on July 1, 2015 at 8:45 am

Allen 2

This review originally appeared here in Southern Literary Review.

Now that it’s 2015, the sesquicentennial of the Civil War has come to a close. Those who don’t follow such anniversaries may not have noticed it was ever here, but it was, although without the fanfare or nostalgia that marked the commemorations at the semi-centennial and the centennial.

Michael Kreyling, a professor of English at Vanderbilt University with an endowed chair and several books to his credit, brings a literary touch to his brief history of the Civil War—not of its battles and heroes and victims and villains but of the manner in which Americans have recalled those things over time. A history about history, conceived as a series of lectures, A Late Encounter With the Civil War bears a title that seems to apply as aptly to Kreyling (he’s had a long and distinguished career in literature but hasn’t worked extensively in the field of Civil War studies) as it does to the current era’s strained connection with the bloodiest conflict the nation has ever experienced.

Kreyling focuses on “collective memory,” a concept he purports to borrow from Maurice Halbwachs and Emile Durkheim and the premise of which is “that humans assemble or construct memory in the context of social life: we remember what our social groups require us to remember in order to maintain historical continuity over time and to claim our membership in them.” Collective memory is participatory rather than commanded, evolutionary rather than fixed, fluctuating rather than static; it emerges out of the conversations people within a given territory have regarding a particular event.

Kreyling is, of course, concerned with our collective memory of the Civil War. It is unclear which individuals enforce or control the regime of collective memory according to his paradigm, but presumably he means to suggest that all members of the community are at least partially complicit in the narrative perpetuation that becomes collective memory.

From the premise of collective memory Kreyling sets out to establish the constructedness of Southern narratives about the war and thereby to refute the assumption of Pierre Nova, who once claimed that “[d]ifferent versions of the Revolution or the Civil War do not threaten the American tradition because, in some sense, no such thing exists—or, if it does, it is not primarily a historical construction.” Kreyling submits, contra Nova, that historical memory is constructed because it involves both gradual initiation and exclusion: those who understand and promote the validated, official account are admitted into the group, members of which celebrate a shared past, whereas those who challenge the authorized narratives are marginalized or altogether excluded from the group. What the approved story of the Civil War is at the moment of the sesquicentennial remains unknown because, he says, only years after such a landmark can we objectively evaluate its cultural reception and narrative production.

Collective memory is not the same thing as personal memory. It is a “kind of complicated puppet theater” inasmuch as “we are the puller of strings” as well as “the figures pulled.” We not only “set dates for ceremonies of public memory and fill the ceremonies with choreographed activities” but also allow ourselves to be dragged along with such ceremonies; we resort to ritualistic commemoration to project the past onto our present, he explains, and to attempt to define ourselves both by and against our past.

Kreyling argues in his opening chapter that “the United States that formally remembered the Civil War at the semicentennial was different from the America of the centennial and sesquicentennial by one very powerful theme we can identify in retrospect: blood.” The subject of blood leads Kreyling into meandering discussions of The Great Gatsby and Bram Stoker’s Dracula. This chapter becomes less about the memory of the Civil War and more about early 20th-century eugenicist fascinations with blood, an element of romanticized fiction that is “latent symbolic” or “cultural” because it “invades or pollutes the endangered citadel of whiteness.”

Theodore Roosevelt used the term “race suicide” to express a widely shared fear of racial degeneration, which was linked, Kreyling alleges, to a perceived collapse of civilization. Kreyling ties Roosevelt’s term to both the creation of and reaction to popular works by D. W. Griffith and Thomas Dixon Jr. He even implicates Woodrow Wilson in the rapid proliferation of racism—and not just by recalling Wilson’s oft-discussed response to the screening of The Birth of a Nation in the White House.

The second chapter maps the shift from memorialization to mass anxiety as race-relations in America forced the nation to reconsider the meaning and purpose of the Civil War. Here Kreyling considers an array of figures, from Bruce Catton and Robert Penn Warren to Edmund Wilson and Flannery O’Connor, to substantiate the proposition that public interest in the Civil War was on the wane and overshadowed by the Civil Rights Movement and the Cold War. All of this is very interesting, but we shouldn’t be surprised that most of the population at that time was more interested in its present moment than in a war that had occurred a century earlier.

The third and final chapter speculates about those “negotiations” that we have “between what did happen” during the Civil War and “what we would prefer to remember.” I say “speculates” because Kreyling is careful not to seem rash or conclusory about our own moment. Rather than giving an answer, for instance, he says that “we need to ask” the question “[w]here is the South now?” That we may ask that question at all shows how much different our generation is from those which came before, as Kreyling demonstrates by surveying recent literary scholarship on the matter.

Wherever the South is now, it seems to have traveled far from “pure ancestor worship.” That doesn’t mean our memory has become unproblematic. Kreyling sees in the historical fiction of Newt Gingrich and William R. Forstchen, for example, a disturbing turn to a counterfactual mode of ritual that distorts our understanding of past events. Kreyling rounds out his discussion of Gingrich and Forstchen (among other people and texts) with an upsetting observation: “we commemorate past wars with new ones.” Such a strong and ambiguous claim demands clarification, yet Kreyling doesn’t elaborate, perhaps because long explication would detract from the lasting force and profundity of the closing remark.

As smoothly as this book reads, one wonders what its chief contribution will be. It’s certainly unique and innovative to, as Kreyling does, compare vampire fiction with the racist notion of thoroughbred whiteness that was in circulation at the semicentennial. On the other hand, there might be a good reason why this approach hasn’t been tried, and it’s not because no one has thought of it.

When a book doesn’t move professional historiography in a direction that unearths obscure details, that adds to the sum of knowledge on a precise topic, or that sheds light on events by examining them from the unexplored perspective of cultural outsiders, it can rely too heavily on style and creativity and entertainment value. Kreyling’s book isn’t devoid of scholarship, but it does push the bounds of that genre. Perhaps its greatest achievement is its capacity to raise provocative questions about our present relationship to a conflict that in some ways seems so distant, but in others so familiar.