See Disclaimer Below.

Archive for the ‘Law’ Category

, , , , ,

Was Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. a Conservative?

In American History, Arts & Letters, Conservatism, History, Humanities, Judicial Restraint, Jurisprudence, Law, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Philosophy, Politics, Pragmatism on November 4, 2015 at 8:45 am

Allen 2

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. can seem politically enigmatic in part because he was a jurist, not a legislator. He was no conservative, but he was no progressive, either. Misconstruing and mislabeling him only leads to the confusion and discrediting of certain views that conservatives and libertarians alike seriously ought to consider. One must not mistakenly assume that because Lochner-era Fourteenth Amendment due process jurisprudence favored business interests, Holmes stood against business interests when he rejected New York’s Fourteenth Amendment due process defense. (I have avoided the anachronistic term “substantive due process,” which gained currency decades after Lochner.)

Holmes resisted sprawling interpretations of words and principles—even if his hermeneutics brought about consequences he did not like—and he was open about his willingness to decide cases against his own interests. As he wrote to his cousin John T. Morse, “It has given me great pleasure to sustain the Constitutionality of laws that I believe to be as bad as possible, because I thereby helped to mark the difference between what I would forbid and what the Constitution permits.”

All labels for Holmes miss the mark. Holmes defies categorization, which can be a lazy way of affixing a name to something in order to avoid considering the complexity and nuances, and even contradictions, inherent in that something. “Only the shallow,” said Justice Felix Frankfurter, “would attempt to put Mr. Justice Holmes in the shallow pigeonholes of classification.”

Holmes was not conservative but more like a pragmatist in the judicial sense. His position on judging is analogous to William James’s suggestion that a person is entitled to believe what he wants so long as the practice of his religious belief is verifiable in experience and does not infringe upon the opportunity of others to exercise their own legitimate religious practices. James exposited the idea of a “pluralistic world,” which he envisioned to be, in his words, “more like a federal republic than like an empire or a kingdom.” Holmes likewise contemplated the notion of a federal republic in his majority opinions and dissents.

The above text is adapted from an excerpt of my essay “Justice Holmes and Conservatism,” published in The Texas Review of Law & Politics, Vol. 17 (2013). To view the full essay, you may download it here at SSRN or visit the website of The Texas Review of Law & Politics.

, , , , , , ,

1881: The Year Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Adapted Emerson to the Post-War Intellectual Climate

In American History, American Literature, Arts & Letters, Emerson, History, Humanities, Jurisprudence, Law, Literature, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Philosophy, Pragmatism, Western Philosophy on October 14, 2015 at 8:45 am

Allen 2

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. turned forty in 1881. The publication of The Common Law that year gave him a chance to express his jurisprudence to a wide audience. This marked a turning point in his career. Over the next year, he would become a professor at Harvard Law School and then, a few months later, an associate justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

The trauma of the Civil War affected his thinking and would eventually impact his jurisprudence. Leading up to the War, he had been an Emersonian idealist who associated with such abolitionists as Wendell Phillips. As a student at Harvard, he had served as Phillips’s bodyguard. He later enlisted in the infantry before joining the Twentieth Massachusetts, a regiment that lost five eighths of its men. He was wounded at the Battle of Ball’s Bluff in October of 1861, when he took a bullet to his chest; the bullet passed through his body without touching his heart or lungs. In September of 1862, he was wounded at the Battle of Antietam, a bullet having passed through his neck. In May of 1863, at Marye’s Hill, close to where the battle of Fredericksburg had taken place six months earlier, Holmes was shot and wounded a third time. This time the bullet struck him in the heel, splintered his bone, and tore his ligaments; his doctors were convinced that he would lose his leg. He did not, but he limped for the rest of his life.

He emerged from the War a different man. He was colder now, and more soberminded. “Holmes believed,” Louis Menand says, “that it was no longer possible to think the way he had as a young man before the war, that the world was more resistant than he had imagined. But he did not forget what it felt like to be a young man before the war.” And he learned that forms of resistance were necessary and natural in the constant struggle of humans to organize their societies and to discover what practices and activities ought to govern their conduct. The War, accordingly, made him both wiser and more disillusioned. In light of his disillusionment, he reflected the general attitudes of many men his age.

But not all men his age shared his penetrating intellect or his exhilarating facility with words; nor did they have his wartime experience, for most men who experienced what he had during the war did not live to tell about it. Certainly no one besides Holmes could claim to have enjoyed such intimate and privileged access to the Brahmin, Emersonian culture of New England before the War, and he more than anyone was equipped to see the continued relevance of that culture to the present. He knew there were things the War could not destroy and varieties of thought that could endure.

The above text is an excerpt from my essay “Pragmatism on the Shoulders of Emerson: Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s Jurisprudence as a Synthesis of Emerson, Peirce, James, and Dewey,” published in The South Carolina Review, Vol. 48, No. 1 (2015). To view the full essay, you may download it here at SSRN or visit the website of The South Carolina Review.

 

, , , ,

“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.

 

, , , , , ,

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.

, , , ,

Interview with Hubert Crouch

In Arts & Letters, Books, Creative Writing, Fiction, Humanities, Justice, Law, Literature, News and Current Events, Novels, Southern Literary Review, Southern Literature, The South on July 29, 2015 at 8:45 am

This interview originally appeared in Southern Literary Review.

Hubert Crouch

Hubert Crouch

AM: Thanks for taking the time to talk to Southern Literary Review about The Word, your second novel. Jace Forman, the protagonist of your first novel, Cried For No One, is back in this novel. How has your experience as a trial lawyer shaped Jace’s character, if at all? Is it even possible to identify where your legal background has shaped your character development?

HC: I leaned heavily on my experiences as a trial lawyer while creating Jace Forman. I actually know how it feels to try “high-stakes” lawsuits – the intense pressure, the sleepless nights, the perpetual gnawing in your stomach – because I have lived through them. What a trial lawyer goes through in his professional life has a profound impact on his personal life – again, I felt I was able to portray that realistically with Jace because personal experience was a good teacher. I am not saying Jace is autobiographical – he’s not. That being said, my ability to create his character was, in large part, the result of having been a trial lawyer myself.

AM: I’m not out­-of­-bounds in supposing that readers of Cried For No One will, like me, associate Ezekiel Shaw and the Brimstone Bible Church with Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, which is featured in the book. Is there a deliberate connection?

HC: I taught Free Speech and the First Amendment to SMU undergraduates. One of the cases we discussed in class was Snyder v. Phelps. There were some lively exchanges between students over whether the Supreme Court got it right when they threw out the multi-million dollar judgment awarded to the Snyders. Had the Court gone too far in protecting free speech? Had the Court allowed a zealous sect to trample upon the rights of a family to bury their loved one in peace? Our classroom debate inspired me to change the factual scenario, inject a different religious issue and pit the conflicting positions against one another in a fictitious lawsuit.

AM: What made you decide to incorporate Leah Rosen and Cal Connors into the plot? Did you envision them at the outset, or did they come later, after you had already begun writing?

HC: Cal and Leah were characters from my first novel, Cried for No One. Leah continues her investigation into Cal’s legal misdeeds in the stand-alone sequel.

AM: As someone who has never attempted to write a thriller, I’m curious about how the intricate thriller plot falls into place. How much mapping or outlining do you do before beginning the writing process, and how often is the writing process interrupted by the need to adjust or revise?

HC: Before I wrote a word of the manuscript, I drafted a detailed, chapter-by-chapter outline, which went through a number of revisions. Once the outline was finished, I began writing the novel. Some might argue that having an outline is too confining. I get that. But for me, it is important to know where I’m ultimately going to end up before I start the journey. I find there is plenty of opportunity for creativity along the way.

AM: Texas. It’s big on the map and big in your book. You’ve been practicing law there for some time. How far back does your connection go?

HC: A long way. I graduated from Vanderbilt in 1973 and then attended SMU Law School. After receiving my law degree from SMU, I began practicing trial law in Dallas and that’s what I’ve been doing ever since. Although I grew up in Tennessee, I felt right at home in Texas. As the old adage goes, when you prick a Texan, he bleeds Tennessee blood.

AM: Why did you dedicate this book to your female law school classmates?

HC: One of my close friends and study partners in law school was female. She was brilliant, graduating number one in our class. And yet she received few offers from the top law firms in Dallas. There could be only one explanation – she was a woman. She, along with several other of my female classmates who had encountered a similar fate, took bold action and sued some of the major firms in Dallas. A settlement was reached which opened the door to countless female law school graduates afterwards.

AM: When did you start writing fiction?

HC: Over twenty-five years ago. I wrote a manuscript that has still not been published, although I consider pulling it out of the banker’s box it’s been in for years and giving it a read to see if it’s salvageable. After I shelved it, I was inspired to write my first novel, Cried for No One, by an actual lawsuit I handled involving a macabre grave robbery. I got up early each morning and wrote before going to work. The process took me years before I had a finished manuscript.

AM: Do you know what the future holds for Jace Forman? Can readers expect to see him again?

HC: I have enjoyed creating and getting to know Jace. Based upon the reviews, readers seem to like him and, if that sentiment continues, I will likely keep him around for a while.

AM: Last question, but two parts. How much research into the First Amendment went into this book? And how interested were you in First Amendment issues before you started into this book?

HC: I have studied the First Amendment, and the cases interpreting it, extensively. As mentioned above, I actually taught a course about it to SMU undergraduates. The drafters were so brilliant and far-sighted to come up with such an important enactment. We will forever be in their debt.

AM: Thank you again.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

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.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Razing the Bar

In American History, History, Humane Economy, Law, Legal Education & Pedagogy, Liberalism on June 17, 2015 at 8:45 am

Allen 2

This piece originally appeared here in The Freeman.

The bar exam was designed and continues to operate as a mechanism for excluding the lower classes from participation in the legal services market. Elizabeth Olson of the New York Times reports that the bar exam as a professional standard “is facing a new round of scrutiny — not just from the test takers but from law school deans and some state legal establishments.”

This is a welcome development.

Testing what, exactly?

The dean of the University of San Diego School of Law, Stephen C. Ferrulo, complains to the Times that the bar exam “is an unpredictable and unacceptable impediment for accessibility to the legal profession.” Ferrulo is right: the bar exam is a barrier to entry, a form of occupational licensure that restricts access to a particular vocation and reduces market competition.

The bar exam tests the ability to take tests, not the ability to practice law. The best way to learn the legal profession is through tried experience and practical training, which, under our current system, are delayed for years, first by the requirement that would-be lawyers graduate from accredited law schools and second by the bar exam and its accompanying exam for professional fitness.

Freedom of contract

The 19th-century libertarian writer Lysander Spooner, himself a lawyer, opposed occupational licensure as a violation of the freedom of contract, arguing that, once memorialized, all agreements between mutually consenting parties “should not be subjects of legislative caprice or discretion.”

“Men may exercise at discretion their natural rights to enter into all contracts whatsoever that are in their nature obligatory,” he wrote, adding that this principle would prohibit all laws “forbidding men to make contracts by auction without license.”

In more recent decades, Milton Friedman disparaged occupational licensure as “another example of governmentally created and supported monopoly on the state level.” For Friedman, occupational licensure was no small matter. “The overthrow of the medieval guild system,” he said,

was an indispensable early step in the rise of freedom in the Western world. It was a sign of the triumph of liberal ideas.… In more recent decades, there has been a retrogression, an increasing tendency for particular occupations to be restricted to individuals licensed to practice them by the state.

The bar exam is one of the most notorious examples of this “increasing tendency.”

Protecting lawyers from the poor

The burden of the bar exam falls disproportionately on low-income earners and ethnic minorities who lack the ability to pay for law school or to assume heavy debts to earn a law degree. Passing a bar exam requires expensive bar-exam study courses and exam fees, to say nothing of the costly applications and paperwork that must be completed in order to be eligible to sit for the exam. The average student-loan debt for graduates of many American law schools now exceeds $150,000, while half of all lawyers make less than $62,000 per year, a significant drop since a decade ago.

Recent law-school graduates do not have the privilege of reducing this debt after they receive their diploma; they must first spend three to four months studying for a bar exam and then, having taken the exam, must wait another three to four months for their exam results. More than half a year is lost on spending and waiting rather than earning, or at least earning the salary of a licensed attorney (some graduates work under the direction of lawyers pending the results of their bar exam).

When an individual learns that he or she has passed the bar exam, the congratulations begin with an invitation to pay a licensing fee and, in some states, a fee for a mandatory legal-education course for newly admitted attorneys. These fees must be paid before the individual can begin practicing law.

The exam is working — but for whom?

What’s most disturbing about this system is that it works precisely as it was designed to operate.  State bar associations and bar exams are products of big-city politics during the Progressive Era. Such exams existed long before the Progressive Era — Delaware’s bar exam dates back to 1763 — but not until the Progressive Era were they increasingly formalized and institutionalized and backed by the enforcement power of various states.

Threatened by immigrant workers and entrepreneurs who were determined to earn their way out of poverty and obscurity, lawyers with connections to high-level government officials in their states sought to form guilds to prohibit advertising and contingency fees and other creative methods for gaining clients and driving down the costs of legal services. Establishment lawyers felt the entrepreneurial up-and-comers were demeaning the profession and degrading the reputation of lawyers by transforming the practice of law into a business industry that admitted ethnic minorities and others who lacked rank and class. Implementing the bar exam allowed these lawyers to keep allegedly unsavory people and practices out of the legal community and to maintain the high costs of fees and services.

Protecting the consumer

In light of this ugly history, the paternalistic response of Erica Moeser to the New York Times is particularly disheartening. Moeser is the president of the National Conference of Bar Examiners. She says that the bar exam is “a basic test of fundamentals” that is justified by “protecting the consumer.” But isn’t it the consumer above all who is harmed by the high costs of legal services that are a net result of the bar exam and other anticompetitive practices among lawyers? To ask the question is to answer it. It’s also unclear how memorizing often-archaic rules to prepare for standardized, high-stakes multiple-choice tests that are administered under stressful conditions will in any way improve one’s ability to competently practice law.

The legal community and consumers of legal services would be better served by the apprenticeship model that prevailed long before the rise of the bar exam. Under this model, an aspiring attorney was tutored by experienced lawyers until he or she mastered the basics and demonstrated his or her readiness to represent clients. The high cost of law school was not a precondition; young people spent their most energetic years doing real work and gaining practical knowledge. Developing attorneys had to establish a good reputation and keep their costs and fees to a minimum to attract clients, gain trust, and maintain a living.

The rise in technology and social connectivity in our present era also means that reputation markets have improved since the early 20th century, when consumers would have had a more difficult time learning by word-of-mouth and secondhand report that one lawyer or group of lawyers consistently failed their clients — or ripped them off. Today, with services like Amazon, eBay, Uber, and Airbnb, consumers are accustomed to evaluating products and service providers online and for wide audiences.  Learning about lawyers’ professional reputations should be quick and easy, a matter of a simple Internet search.  With no bar exam, the sheer ubiquity and immediacy of reputation markets could weed out the good lawyers from the bad, thereby transferring the mode of social control from the legal cartel to the consumers themselves.

Criticism of the high costs of legal bills has not gone away in recent years, despite the drop in lawyers’ salaries and the saturation of the legal market with too many attorneys. The quickest and easiest step toward reducing legal costs is to eliminate bar exams. The public would see no marked difference in the quality of legal services if the bar exam were eliminated, because, among other things, the bar exam doesn’t teach or test how to deliver those legal services effectively.

It will take more than just the grumbling of anxious, aspiring attorneys to end bar-exam hazing rituals. That law school deans are realizing the drawbacks of the bar exam is a step in the right direction. But it will require protests from outside the legal community — from the consumers of legal services — to effect any meaningful change.

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

An Issue of Supreme Importance for 2016

In America, Conservatism, Judicial Activism, Judicial Restraint, Jurisprudence, Justice, Law, News and Current Events, Politics, The Supreme Court on April 22, 2015 at 8:45 am

Allen 2

This piece originally appeared here in The American Spectator.

The time has come for politicians to announce their candidacy for president. In the following weeks we can expect more names to be tossed into the hat of presidential hopefuls. Already Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Rand Paul have proclaimed their desire to lead our country. Hillary Clinton made her candidacy official Sunday, and Senator Marco Rubio announced on Monday night.

The 2016 election is shaping up to be the most pivotal in decades, including for reasons not everyone is talking about.

It’s true that Republicans will challenge Obama’s legacy and that everything from Obamacare to payday loans will receive renewed and energetic scrutiny on the campaign trail.

Yet these won’t be the most pressing domestic issues facing the next president. Even more important will be the president’s judicial philosophy. That’s because the probability is high that the nation’s next chief executive administration will nominate at least three candidates to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although confidence in the Court is at an all-time low, voters do not seem particularly concerned about the Court’s future composition. Perhaps the typical voter does not understand the role the president plays in nominating justices. Perhaps the goings-on of the judicial branch seem distant and aloof and out of the purview of our everyday worries. Perhaps most people are too short-sighted to consider the long-term and far-reaching effects that a president can have on the legal system. Whatever the reason, voters should re-prioritize. Conservatives should move this issue to the forefront of the debates.

When the president is inaugurated in January 2017, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, widely thought to be in poor health, will be two months shy of her 84th birthday; Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Anthony Kennedy will be 80; and Justice Stephen Breyer will be 78. Is it reasonable to expect these justices to serve out four more years under another administration?

Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer are considered members of the left wing of the Court whereas Justice Scalia is considered to be on the right. Justice Kennedy is famously known as the Court’s “swing vote.”

If a Republican wins in 2016 election, he could replace two liberal members of the Court, leaving just two other remaining: Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan. If Justice Kennedy were also to step down during the next administration, a Republican president could further expand the conservative wing of the Court to seven, making room for a vast majority in contentious cases. If the right wing of the Court enjoyed a 7-2 majority today, for instance, there would be less media speculation about how the Court would decide cases on same-sex marriage, religious freedom, immigration, or campaign finance.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, which conducts hearings on presidential nominees to the High Court, currently consists of 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats. Republicans hold a 54-member majority in the Senate, the governing body that confirms presidential nominees to the Court. If these numbers remain unchanged or only slightly changed under a Republican president, that president would have wide latitude to nominate candidates who have tested and principled commitments to conservatism.

Let’s say the presidential election favored a Democrat. A Democratic president could simply replace the departing Justice Ginsburg or Justice Breyer with a jurist in their mold, in effect filling a liberal seat with another liberal. If a Democratic president were up against a Republican Senate, however, his or her nominees would have to appear less liberal than Justice Ginsburg to ensure their confirmation.

Replacing Justice Scalia, arguably the most conservative justice on the Court, with a liberal would be transformative. Although depicted as an unpredictable moderate, Justice Kennedy was nominated by a Republican and more often than not votes with the right wing of the Court. Replacing him with a liberal justice would be a victory for the left. It is possible for the left wing of the Court to gain a 6-3 majority if a Democrat succeeds President Obama.

It’s not inconceivable that in the time he last left, President Obama could name at least one successor to the Court. Barring some unforeseen illness or act of God, however, that is unlikely to happen this late in his presidency. Justice Ginsburg insists on remaining on the Court, and Justice Breyer still has some healthy, productive years ahead of him.

Judges’ and justices’ judicial philosophies are not easily pressed into two sides—conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat—because law itself usually is not reducible to raw politics or naked partisanship, and a judge’s job entails more than interpreting the language of legislative enactments. Law deals with the complex interactions of people and institutions under disputed circumstances that are portrayed and recounted from different perspectives; therefore, law rarely fits cleanly within simplistic political frameworks.

For this reason, among others, it can be difficult to predict how potential justices will rule from the bench if they are installed on the Court. Chief Justice Earl Warren ushered in the progressive “Warren Court Era” even though he had served as the Republican Governor of California and, in 1948, as the vice-presidential running mate of presidential candidate Thomas E. Dewey. More recently President George H.W. Bush nominated Justice David Souter to the Court. Justice Souter tended to vote consistently with the liberal members of the Court.

The Senate confirmation process has grown more contentious in recent years, and that has made it more difficult for another Souter to slip by the president. But it has also watered down our nominees, whose lack of a paper trail is considered a benefit rather than evidence of a lack of conviction or philosophical knowledge (lawyers are trained, not educated). It has come to a point where if you’re confirmable, you’re not reliable, and if you’re reliable, you’re not confirmable. Chief Justice John Roberts’ acrobatic attempt to uphold the individual mandate in Obamacare on the ground that it was a “tax” reveals just how squishy and unpredictable our justices have become.

There is, of course, the trouble with categorizing: What does it mean to be a “conservative” or a “liberal” judge or justice? Our presidential candidates may have different answers. In January Senator Paul declared himself a “judicial activist,” a label that is gaining favor among libertarians. He appears to have backed away from that position, recently bemoaning “out-of-control, unelected federal judges.” Activist judges, at any rate, can be on the right or the left.

Ted Cruz has not advertised his judicial philosophy yet, but by doing so he could set himself apart because of his vast legal experience, including his service as the Solicitor General of Texas. Two potential presidential nominees, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham, are also attorneys, but Rubio’s legal experience, or non-experience, is subject to question, and Graham has been out of the legal field for some time—although he serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee and has intimate knowledge of the Senate confirmation prospects for potential nominees.

It matters a great deal what our presidential candidates believe about the hermeneutics and jurisprudence embraced by potential Supreme Court justices. In the coming months voters will have the power to force candidates to address their judicial philosophy. The candidates must articulate clearly, thoroughly, and honestly what qualities they admire in judges because those qualities might just shape the nation’s political landscape for decades to come.

Conservatives have much to lose or gain this election in terms of the judiciary. Supreme Court nominations should be a top priority for Republicans when debate season arrives.
Read more at http://spectator.org/articles/62383/issue-supreme-importance-2016