See Disclaimer Below.

Archive for the ‘Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’ Category

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

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Pragmatism, and the Jurisprudence of Agon

In America, American History, American Literature, Arts & Letters, Books, History, Humanities, Jurisprudence, Law, Law-and-Literature, Legal Research & Writing, liberal arts, Literary Theory & Criticism, Literature, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Philosophy, Pragmatism, Rhetoric, Scholarship, The Supreme Court, Western Philosophy, Writing on December 7, 2016 at 6:45 am

Allen 2

My latest book, scheduled for release next week through Bucknell University Press, is about United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.  The book continues my work at the intersection of law and the humanities and should interest scholars of literary theory, American literature, jurisprudence, and pragmatism.

I argue in the book that Holmes helps us see the law through an Emersonian lens by the way in which he wrote his judicial dissents. Holmes’s literary style mimics and enacts two characteristics of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s thought: “superfluity” and the “poetics of transition,” concepts ascribed to Emerson and developed by literary critic Richard Poirier. Using this aesthetic style borrowed from Emerson and carried out by later pragmatists, Holmes not only made it more likely that his dissents would remain alive for future judges or justices (because how they were written was itself memorable, whatever the value of their content), but also shaped our understanding of dissents and, in this, our understanding of law. By opening constitutional precedent to potential change, Holmes’s dissents made room for future thought, moving our understanding of legal concepts in a more pragmatic direction and away from formalistic understandings of law. Included in this new understanding is the idea that the “canon” of judicial cases involves oppositional positions that must be sustained if the law is to serve pragmatic purposes. This process of precedent-making in a common-law system resembles the construction of the literary canon as it is conceived by Harold Bloom and Richard Posner.

The book is available for purchase here:

Click here to purchase

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

Varieties of Emersonian Pragmatism: Synthesis in Justice Holmes

In Academia, America, American History, American Literature, Arts & Letters, Books, Creativity, Emerson, Historicism, History, Humanities, Literary Theory & Criticism, Literature, Nineteenth-Century America, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Philosophy, Poetry, Pragmatism, Rhetoric, Scholarship on April 20, 2016 at 6:45 am

Allen 2

There is a long tradition of scholarship regarding Emerson’s pragmatism. Among those who have written about Emerson’s pragmatism are Russell B. Goodman, Giles Gunn, Poirier, Cornel West, Joan Richardson, Levin, and James M. Albrecht. Even earlier Kenneth Burke noted that “we can see the incipient pragmatism in Emerson’s idealism” and that “Emerson’s brand of transcendentalism was but a short step ahead of an out-and-out pragmatism.”

Goodman analyzed Emerson as “America’s first Romantic philosopher,” the counterpart to Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Carlyle whose idealism would influence William James and later John Dewey and Stanley Cavell.

Gunn examined while contributing to the critical renaissance of American pragmatism in the 1990s; he suggested that Emerson cast a long shadow “at the commencement of the pragmatist tradition in America” and that Emerson belonged to a family of writers that included Henry James, Kenneth Burke, John Dewey, Frank Lentricchia, and others.

To reach this conclusion Gunn adopted a more diffuse definition of pragmatism that went beyond the philosophical tradition of Peirce, Dewey, George Herbert Mead, Sidney Hook, Morton White, Richard Bernstein, John McDermott, and Richard Rorty. He attended to aesthetically charged political texts presented not only by Emerson but also by W.E.B. DuBois, James Baldwin, Flannery O’ Connor, Elizabeth Hardwick, Poirier, Cornel West, Clifford Geertz, and Stanley Fish. Gunn left behind James’s “somewhat restricted focus on the nature of knowledge and the meaning of truth” and turned instead to literary and cultural works that affected social issues.

Gunn’s focus on the social indicates a debt to Dewey, and his valuation of Emerson must be considered in a Deweyian context. That Emerson is a pragmatist is somewhat implied or tacit in Gunn’s account; his discussion is not about what elements of Emersonian thought evidence pragmatism but about how Emerson influenced Henry James Sr. and his sons William and Henry, who in turn influenced a host of other writers; how Emerson spearheaded an American tradition of strong poets and transmitted optimism to subsequent writers; and how Emerson cultivated aesthetic rhetoric and anticipated progressive sociopolitical thought.

If Gunn is a bridge between classical philosophical pragmatism and neopragmatism of the aesthetic variety, Poirier was neither classical philosophical nor neopragmatist, eschewing as he did the logics and empiricism of Pierce and James as well as the political agitating of some of Gunn’s subjects. Poirier concentrated above all on the literary and cultural aspects of pragmatism: not that these aspects are divorced from politics, only that their primary objective is aesthetic or philosophical rather than partisan or activist.

Poirier sought to “revitalize a tradition linking Emerson to, among others, Stein, and to claim that new directions can thereby be opened up for contemporary criticism.” He, like Gunn, was frank about his attempt to expand the pragmatist canon that purportedly began with Emerson. “As Emerson would have it,” he explained, “every text is a reconstruction of some previous texts of work, work that itself is always, again, work-in-progress.”

This constant, competitive process of aesthetic revision gives rise to a community of authors whose mimetic activities gradually form and reform a canon that resembles and functions like the constantly reformulating legal principles in a common-law system: “The same work gets repeated throughout history in different texts, each being a revision of past texts to meet present needs, needs which are perceived differently by each new generation.” Within this revisionary paradigm, Poirier heralded Emerson as the writer who “wants us […] to discover traces of productive energy that pass through a text or a composition or an author, pointing always beyond any one of them.”

Cornel West explored the radical implications of pragmatism to democracy in the works of Emerson, Peirce, William James, Dewey, Sidney Hook, C. Wright Mills, W.E.B. DuBois, Reinhold Niebuhur, Lionel Trilling, Roberto Unger, and Michel Foucault. Unlike the interpreters of pragmatism discussed above, West extended the pragmatist canon from America to the European continent and professed a radical preoccupation with knowledge, power, control, discourse, and politics. Like the previous interpreters, however, he acknowledged the family resemblances among disparate pragmatist thinkers and their ideas and so, in Nietzschean or Foucaultian fashion, undertook a “genealogy” of their traditions.

Recent work by Colin Koopman has run with the historicist compatibilities between genealogy and pragmatism to articulate novel approaches to cultural studies. Although the topic exceeds the scope of this short post, genealogical pragmatism might serve as a promising methodology for future studies of the common-law system.

“My emphasis on the political and moral side of pragmatism,” West explained, “permits me to make the case for the familiar, but rarely argued, claim that Emerson is the appropriate starting point for the pragmatist tradition.” West’s emphasis on pragmatism as a “new and novel form of indigenous American oppositional thought” has an interesting valence with Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s new and novel form of dissenting from the majority and plurality opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Holmes’s jurisprudence was oppositional, in other words, although not radical in the sense that West means.

West credited Emerson with enacting “an intellectual style of cultural criticism that permits and encourages American pragmatists to swerve from mainstream European philosophy,” and Holmes’s dissents likewise moved American jurisprudence away from its British origins—especially from Blackstonian paradigms of the common law—and towards an oppositional paradigm modeled off theories of Darwinian struggle.

Richardson borrows a phrase from Darwin, “frontier instances,” which he borrowed from Francis Bacon, to trace the continuity of pragmatism in American life and thought. Her argument “proceeds by amplification, a gesture mimetic of Pragmatism itself, each essay illustrating what happened over time to a form of thinking brought over by the Puritans to the New World.” She treats pragmatism as a uniquely American philosophy and more impressively as an organism that develops through natural selection: “The signal, if implicit, motive of Pragmatism is the realization of thinking as a life form, subject to the same processes of growth and change as all other life forms.” Her diverse subjects signal the definitive expositors of pragmatism for their respective eras: Jonathan Edwards, Emerson, William and Henry James, Wallace Stevens, and Gertrude Stein.

Richardson’s Emerson is a visionary who retained a ministerial or spiritual philosophy but who repackaged it in less conventionally Christian terms than his Puritan, evangelical predecessors. She explains that Emerson imperfectly replicated the work of Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles to make it apprehensible in the rapidly changing American context. Her latest book, Pragmatism and American Experience, endeavors to untangle the knot of pragmatism and transcendentalism, searching Cavell for illumination regarding the perceived mismatch between these two prominent schools of American philosophy.

Albrecht interrogates the term “individualism” and describes its currency within a pragmatic tradition that runs from Emerson, William James, and Dewey to Kenneth Burke and Ralph Ellison. Unlike the aforementioned scholars of Emerson, who “do not resolve the question of how far, and to what purpose, one can claim the ‘pragmatic’ character of Emerson’s thought,” Albrecht comes close to a practical answer that is made more insightful and understandable in light of Holmes’s judicial writings that appear in media (opinions and dissents) that control rather than merely influence social patterns.

Albrecht strikes a balance between radical and conservative characterizations of pragmatism, “which gets accused of […] contradictory sins: it optimistically overestimates the possibilities for reform, or it succumbs to a conservative gradualism; it is too committed to a mere, contentless method of inquiry that undermines the stability of traditional meanings, or its emphasis on existing means places too much weight on the need to accommodate existing customs, truths, and institutions.” The same could be said of the common-law tradition that Holmes adored and about which he authored his only book, The Common Law, in 1881.

Albrecht never mentions the common law, but there is a mutual radiance between his analysis of Emerson and the longstanding notion of the common law as the gradual implementation and description of rules by courts, aggregated into a canon by way of innumerable cases and in response to changing social norms. Nor does Albrecht mention Holmes, whose Emersonian contributions to pragmatism only affirm Albrecht’s contention that “there are important benefits to be gained not by calling Emerson a pragmatist, […] but by reading Emerson pragmatically—by applying the fundamental methods and attitudes of pragmatism in order to highlight the ways in which similar attitudes are already present in, and central to, Emerson.”

One such benefit involves the sober realization that Holmes’s Emersonian pragmatism cannot be or ought not to be distorted to mean an equivalence with contemporary and coordinate signifiers such as “Left” and “Right,” “Liberal” and “Conservative,” for there are as many self-proclaimed “Conservative pragmatists,” to borrow a term from the jurist Robert H. Bork, as there are Cornel Wests: thinkers “concern[ed] with particularity—respect for difference, circumstance, tradition, history and the irreducible complexity of human beings and human societies—[which] does not qualify as a universal principle, but competes with and holds absurd the idea of a utopia achievable in this world” (Bork’s words).

Due to the long line of scholars celebrating and studying Emersonian pragmatism, Albrecht is able to remark, “The notion that Emerson is a seminal figure or precursor for American pragmatism is no longer new or controversial.” He extends and affirms a scholarly tradition by depicting “an Emerson whose vision of the limited yet sufficient opportunities for human agency and power prefigures the philosophy of American pragmatism.”

More important than Albrecht’s being the latest link in a chain is the clarifying focus he provides for examining an Emersonian Holmes by attending to two ideas that comport with common-law theory: first, that Emerson prefigured James by walking a line between monism and pluralism and by emphasizing the contingency and complexity of natural phenomena; and second, that Emerson considered ideas as derived from past experience but open to creative revision in keeping with present circumstances.

Regarding the first, Albrecht seeks to undermine a prevailing assumption that Emerson was some kind of absolute idealist, as even William James suggested. Albrecht’s argument is based on the position that Emerson rejected essentialisms and envisioned a cosmos consisting of competing forms and ideas that grow and evolve because of their competition.

Regarding the second, Albrecht seeks to show that although Emerson imagined himself as breaking from past forms and ideas, he also regarded the past as indispensable to our understanding of the present and as necessary for generating and cultivating creative dynamism; the past is inescapable and must be utilized to shape the present, in other words. “All attempts to project and establish a Cultus with new rites and forms, seem to me vain,” Emerson preached in this vein in his Divinity School address, adding that all “attempts to contrive a system are as cold as the new worship introduced by the French to the goddess of Reason[.] […] Rather let the breath of new life be breathed by you through the forms already existing.”

Albrecht promises an Emerson who recounts the mimetic and derivative nature of creativity and genius; yet his portrait of Emerson is incomplete without Poirier, who describes an Emersonian stream of pragmatism flowing with idiomatic, resonate, sonorous, and figurative language. Poirier’s notion of superfluity is central to understanding Holmes’s Emersonian role within a common-law system where “[e]very several result is threatened and judged by that which follows” (Emerson, “Circles”). In the common-law system according to Holmes, a “rapid intrinsic energy worketh everywhere, righting wrongs, correcting appearances, and bringing up facts to a harmony with thoughts” as they are permutated in case precedents (Emerson, “Divinity School Address).

Poirier’s notion of Emersonian superfluity involves a thinker’s “continual effort to raise himself above himself, to work a pitch above his last height,” and to push the syntactical and intellectual boundaries so as to avoid having “the same thought, the same power of expression, to-morrow” (Emerson, “Circles”). Superfluity is an attempt to realize in language the restive impulse to drive forward and reenergize, to prophesy and transcend. It characterizes language that is designed to “stir the feelings of a generation” (Holmes, “Law in Science and Science in Law”), or less grandiosely to compensate rhetorically for the inability of the written word to realize the extraordinary power of an idea or emotion.

 

, , , , ,

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.

 

, , , ,

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.

, , , , ,

The Felony-Murder Rule: Background and Justification

In American History, Britain, Criminal Law, History, Humanities, Jurisprudence, Justice, Law, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Philosophy on October 8, 2014 at 8:45 am

Allen 2

The rule at common law as incorporated into the legal system of the early United States was that a person is guilty of murder (and not some lesser offense of killing) if he killed another person during the commission or attempted commission of any felony. This rule is known as the “felony-murder rule.” It was abolished in England in the mid-20th century and never existed in such continental nations as France or Germany. The rule became common, however, in various jurisdictions throughout the United States, although it never escaped criticism.

Felony murder is bifurcated into first-degree and second-degree murder: the former arises when the killing of another results from the commission of an enumerated felony; the latter arises when the killing of another results from the commission of an unspecified felony. The felony-murder rule negates any investigation into the objective intent of the offender; it obtains regardless of whether the offender killed his victim intentionally, recklessly, accidentally, or unforeseeably. Although it dispenses with the element of malice that is requisite to a finding of murder, the felony-murder rule retains by implication the concept of malice insofar as the intent to commit a felony is, under the rule, constitutive of malice for murder. The rule, in essence, conflates the intent to commit one wrong with the intent to commit another wrong, namely, the termination of another’s life. The intent to do a felonious wrong is, on this understanding, sufficiently serious to bypass any consideration of the nature of the exact wrong that was contemplated.

The most common justification for the felony-murder rule is that it deters dangerous felonious behavior and decreases the chance that an innocent bystander will suffer bodily harm from a high-risk felony. The possibility of a more severe conviction and sentence, according to this theory, reduces the number of negligent and accidental killings that might have taken place during the commission of a felony. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., supported the felony-murder rule, believing as he did that a felonious offender who kills another person during the commission of any felony ought to be punished as a murderer, even if the killing was not foreseeable based on the circumstances of the felony. Critics of the deterrence justification for the felony-murder rule have argued that no rule can deter an unintended act.

Another justification for the felony-murder rule is that it affirms the sanctity and dignity of human life. This justification answers in the affirmative the question whether a felony resulting in death is more serious than a felony not resulting in death. Because a felony resulting in death is, in fact, more serious, according to this logic, a felony murderer owes a greater debt to society and must accordingly suffer a more extreme punishment. Critics of this view argue that the culpability for the two separate harms—the felony and the killing—must remain separate and be analyzed independently of each other. These critics suggest that the felony-murder rule runs up against constitutional principles regarding proportional punishment (i.e., whether the punishment “fits” the crime) and that there is no justice or fairness in punishing a felon for a harm (death) that was unintended.

, , , , , , , , ,

Holmes’s Dissent in Bartels v. Iowa

In America, American History, Arts & Letters, History, Humanities, Jurisprudence, Law, Literary Theory & Criticism, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Rhetoric, Rhetoric & Communication, Writing on June 18, 2014 at 8:45 am

Allen 2

Bartels v. Iowa, 262 U.S. 404 (1923), is short and to-the-point, extending and confirming the principles released by the United States Supreme Court that very day in Meyer v. Nebraska,[i] a companion case to Bartels that is also short and to-the-point. In Meyer, the Court struck down a Nebraska law restricting the teaching of modern foreign-languages to students from kindergarten to eighth grade. The majority in Meyer found that the law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on the grounds that it infringed upon the liberty interests of teachers, who had a right to practice their profession without the interference of the state with their curriculum so long as that curriculum did not violate explicit State policy.[ii] There was, the Court reasoned, no link between the putative purpose of the law—to protect the welfare of children—and a threat to the public interest.[iii] The law was deemed arbitrary and not reasonably related to a legitimate state interest and, therefore, unconstitutional.

Holmes reserved his Meyers dissent—which maintained that this Nebraska law was constitutional—for the Bartels opinion. In Bartels, the United States Supreme Court addressed an Iowa law similar to the Nebraska regulation and reversed a decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, which had upheld the criminal conviction of a teacher who taught German to his students. “We all agree, I take it,” Holmes began his dissent, “that it is desirable that all the citizens of the United States should speak a common tongue, and therefore that the end aimed at by the statute is a lawful and proper one” (Bartels 412). The pronoun “we” lacks a clear referent. Does Holmes mean “we” justices or “we” Americans? The answer is probably the latter because “we” was (and is) widely and fluidly used to signify the assembled justices on the bench.

Holmes claims that the “only question is whether the means adopted deprive teachers of the liberty secured to them by the Fourteenth Amendment” (Bartels 412). He submits that he will not judge the law according to whether it is good or right but only pursuant to the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. He states, to that end, that he may “appreciate the objection to the law” (“I think I appreciate the objection to the law”) but that the role of the judge is not to take sides on moral or political issues “upon which men reasonably might differ” (Bartels 412). “I am not prepared to say that it is unreasonable,” Holmes explains, using litotes, “to provide that in his early years [a student] shall hear and speak only English at school” (Bartels 412). If it is not unreasonable, then it is reasonable, and “if it is reasonable it is not an undue restriction of the liberty either of teacher or scholar” (Bartels 412).

Holmes’s dissent in Bartels is not known as one of his most notable or outstanding dissents. Nevertheless, it has been referenced not only by the United States Supreme Court[iv] but also by federal and state courts.[v] Although the majority opinion has never been overruled, Holmes’s dissent generally is cited favorably. My approximate calculation based on Westlaw searches is that this dissent has been cited almost 200 times in cases, administrative decisions, and federal court documents such as amicus curiae briefs.

The topic of his dissent—foreign languages in public schools—has been revisited by later courts because it remains relevant, and in that respect, it is not surprising that the dissent continues to be cited. Yet the topic alone does not explain why Holmes’s dissent in particular remains popular, especially if it is not binding precedent. There are other non-binding documents on the topic, including social science studies and law review articles, that are also relevant but that have not been cited in large numbers. Although Holmes’s reputation has something to do with the abundance of citations to his dissent, insofar as his legal opinion carries great weight among jurists, the properties of his dissent likely contribute to its ongoing appeal.

What are these properties? Besides litotes, mentioned above, there is also aphorism: “No one would doubt that a teacher might be forbidden to teach many things.” These words are carefully chosen. It would be absolutist to state that no one would doubt that a teacher is forbidden to teach many things, or to state that no one doubts rather than no one would doubt that a teacher might be forbidden to teach many things, or to state that no one would doubt that a teacher might be forbidden to teach a particular thing rather than many things. This short sentence is so well qualified that it manages to articulate a pithy generalization without succumbing to embellishment or misrepresentation. Moreover, the phrase “no one would doubt that a teacher might be” is anapestic, sharing the same feet of such memorable verses as “’Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house.”

In the opening line to a dissent about language, the deliberate use of sigmatism, or the repetition of “s” sounds for dramatic effect, is striking: “[…] is desirable that […] citizens of the United States should speak.” It is as if Holmes defamiliarizes the “common tongue” (his words) as he writes about the “time [of youth] when familiarity with a language is established.” At the very least, he highlights the nuances of language in a dissent expressed in nuanced language and addressing the very legality of language acquisition within a public institution. In addition, Holmes empowers his dissent with a religious-like seriousness by referring to his fellow justices as “brethren,” and he appears figuratively to objectify his “mind” as something separate from his “consciousness” when he claims that “I cannot bring my mind to believe.”

These moves are not merely literary grandstanding but the instantiation of an important feature of Holmes’s philosophical pragmatism: the fallibility of human intelligence. He will not profess certainty but will formulate his reasoning only in cautious qualifications.

Holmes follows, therefore, with the declaration that the objection to the prohibition on the teaching of foreign languages in Iowa “appears to me to present a question upon which men reasonably might differ”  (my emphasis). His belief in the inherent limitations of human faculties prevents him from saying that the objection does present a question upon which reasonable men may differ.

Having introduced the theme of human knowledge, he turns to metonymy by referring to the state legislation as an “experiment” that the United States Supreme Court should not prevent from taking place. For aught that appears, either the term “experiment” or the state legislation may indicate the other; they are reversible concepts within the paradigm that Holmes establishes here. Treating the states as if they were laboratories, he gestures toward his conviction that the widening capacity of the aggregate knowledge of the community is made possible by allowing social experiments to take place on the most local levels, where the consequences of failure are minimized, whereas the failure of United States Supreme Court justices to rule properly regarding some law or another will have vast consequences that affect social coordination throughout the entire country. Subtle turns of phrase are enough for Holmes to implicate this grand philosophical notion to which he owes his most insightful dissents.

[i]262 U.S. 390 (1923).

[ii] “As the statute undertakes to interfere only with teaching which involves a modern language, leaving complete freedom as to other matters, there seems no adequate foundation for the suggestion that the purpose was to protect the child’s health by limiting his mental activities. It is well known that proficiency in a foreign language seldom comes to one not instructed at an early age, and experience shows that this is not injurious to the health, morals or understanding of the ordinary child.” (Meyer 403)

[iii] “The power of the state to compel attendance at some school and to make reasonable regulations for all schools, including a requirement that they shall give instructions in English, is not questioned. Nor has challenge been made of the state’s power to prescribe a curriculum for institutions which it supports. Those matters are not within the present controversy. Our concern is with the prohibition approved by the Supreme Court. Adams v. Tanner [citation omitted] pointed out that mere abuse incident to an occupation ordinarily useful is not enough to justify its abolition, although regulation may be entirely proper. No emergency has arisen which renders knowledge by a child of some language other than English so clearly harmful as to justify its inhibition with the consequent infringement of rights long freely enjoyed. We are constrained to conclude that the statute as applied is arbitrary and without reasonable relation to any end within the competency of the state.” (Meyer 403).

[iv] Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 518-19 (1969).

[v] Examples of federal court cases referencing Holmes’s dissent include the following: Yniguez v. Arizonans for Official English, 42 F. 3d 1217, 1242 (9th Cir. App. 1994); Kramer v. New York City Bd. of Educ. 715 F. Supp. 2d 335, 342 (E.D. New York 2010); and Cary v. Board of Ed. of Adams-Arapahoe School Dist. 28-J, Aurora, Colo. 598 F. 2d 535, 540 (10th Circ. App. 1979). Examples of state court cases referencing Holmes’s dissent include State v. Hoyt. 84 N.H. 38, 146 A. 170, 171 (N.H. 1929), and Hamilton v. Deland, 198 N.W. 843, 227 Mich. 111, 113 (Mich. 1924).

 

 

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and the Literary Quality of his Prose

In America, American History, American Literature, Arts & Letters, Emerson, History, Humanities, Jurisprudence, Law, Law-and-Literature, Literary Theory & Criticism, Literature, Modernism, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Poetry, Rhetoric, Writing on June 11, 2014 at 8:45 am

Allen 2

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s writings are known for their literary qualities.  The Class Poet at Harvard, the son of a famous poet, and a lifelong devotee of Emerson, Holmes often rendered his judicial writings in poetic prose.  Consider the following lines from Gitlow v. New York, which I have reformulated as a poem:

 

                 Gitlow v. New York[i]

                 A Poem[ii] (1925)

Every idea

is an incitement.

It offers itself for belief

and if believed

it is acted on

unless some other belief

outweighs it

or some failure of energy

stifles the movement

at its birth.

The only difference

between the expression

of an opinion and an incitement

in the narrower sense

is the speaker’s enthusiasm

for the result.

Eloquence may set fire

to reason.

But whatever may be thought

of the redundant discourse

before us

it had no chance of starting

a present conflagration.

 

The plain, raw idioms and variable feet in these lines resemble those characteristically employed by Stevens and William Carlos Williams. Holmes’s language here is similar in tone and rhythm to Williams’s in “The Red Wheelbarrow,” which was published just two years before this dissent. Holmes’s alliterative use of the letter “n” emphasizes mobility, momentum, and ignition: “incitement,” “energy,” “movement,” “incitement,” “enthusiasm,” “conflagration.” These nouns suggest provocation, stimulus, instigation; they are tied to ideas themselves, as in the line “every idea is an incitement,” hence the correspondingly alliterative “n” sounds in the words “expression” and “reason.” The metrical regularity of “Every,” “offers it…,” “for belief,” “failure of,” “energy,” “stifles the,” “at its birth,” “difference,” “narrower,” “Eloquence,” and “had no chance” accents the activity associated with thinking insofar as these dactylic words and phrases pertain to ideas or beliefs. Holmes follows a series of dactyls with spondaic feet just as he describes the possibility of combustion: “Eloquence [stress / slack / slack] may set fire [stress / stress / stress / slack] to reason [stress / stress / slack].” It is as though he wishes to create the sense of building pressure and then of sudden release or combustion. Two unstressed lines abruptly interrupt the heightened tension; the first appears with the transitional conjunction “But,” which signals a change in the tone. Holmes appears to reverse the intensity and calm his diction as he assures us that the “redundant discourse,” a phrase made cacophonous by the alliterative “d” and “s” sounds, has “no chance of starting a present conflagration.” A sudden move to iambic feet and hence to a lightened tone rounds out these lines and suggests that Holmes has smothered or extinguished whatever energy had been building with the three-syllable feet. These lines have become some of the most famous in American constitutional history most likely because of their memorable qualities, which contributed to the eventual vindication of the dissent.

Be that as it may, feet and meter are basic to English speech and writing and may be displayed in many other legal writings by less able judges and justices. It would be difficult to prove that Holmes deliberately set out to invest these lines with literary features, at least those pertaining to alliteration and feet. Holmes no doubt had an ear for language and probably intended to employ alliteration, rhythm, and rhyme in his writings, but how far does his intent extend?  Does the scanning exercise above give Holmes too much credit and attribute to his writings undeserved praise?  There is no empirical way to answer this question, but the speculation is, I think, worth the time.

 

[i] Gitlow v. N.Y., 268 U.S. 652 (1925).

 

[ii] My addition.