See Disclaimer Below.

Archive for the ‘Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’ Category

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).

 

 

Advertisements

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.

 

Allen Mendenhall Interviews Daniel J. Kornstein

In America, American History, Arts & Letters, Books, British Literature, Communication, Essays, Humanities, Literature, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Politics, Rhetoric & Communication, Shakespeare, Writing on June 4, 2014 at 8:45 am
Dan Kornstein

Daniel J. Kornstein

Daniel J. Kornstein is a senior partner at the law firm of Kornstein Veisz Wexler & Pollard, LLP, in New York City.  He earned his law degree from Yale Law School in 1973 and has served as the president of the Law and Humanities Institute.  He has authored several books including Loose Sallies, Something Else: More Shakespeare and the Law, Unlikely Muse, Kill All the Lawyers? Shakespeare’s Legal Appeal, Thinking under Fire, and The Music of the Laws.  His writing has appeared in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun, and the Boston Globe.  In 2002, Dan received the Prix du Palais Littéraire from the Law and Literature Society of France.  In 2013, King Michael of Romania awarded him the Order of the Crown of Romania.

AM: Thanks for taking the time to discuss your new book with me, Dan. The name of the book is Loose Sallies, and as you state in your introduction, it’s not about fast women named Sally. For those who haven’t read the introduction or purchased the book yet, could you begin by discussing the book generally and say something in particular about your chosen genre: the essay.

Loose SalliesDJK: Thank you, Allen, for this opportunity. Those of us who occasionally write are, as you know from your own experience, always delighted to have a chance to explain a bit about how and why we scribble. Loose Sallies is a collection of essays written over the past 25 years mostly about topics of general interest. The first 75 pages is about the drafting of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 and why that remarkable process and its end result are still so important to us today. The rest of the book ranges over a wide variety of topics, from our precious civil liberties to profiles of some famous judges and lawyers to current controversies. It should, I hope, appeal to everyone.

AM: Phillip Lopate has said that the essay is a “diverting” type of literature and that its hallmark is intimacy. You call the essay “intimate, informal and reflective, as if you are sitting at home in your living room or dining room and having a pleasant, sometimes provocative, sometimes stimulating, but always, one hopes, insightful and enlightening conversation.” I agree. The essay is my favorite genre because it’s the genre of the person. You can’t know a person until you’ve met the persona he creates in his essays—and if you don’t write essays, you may not know yourself. Who are your favorite essayists, and what is it about their essays that you find compelling?

DJK: My favorite essayists are the obvious ones: Montaigne, Francis Bacon, Addison & Steele, Hazlitt, Lamb, Orwell, Mencken, Macaulay, Emerson, V.S. Pitchett, E.B. White, Lewis Thomas, George Will, Virginia Woolf, Edmund Wilson, and Joseph Wood Krutch. My favorite living essayists are Lopate and Joseph Epstein, the former editor of The American Scholar magazine. All these writers make their essays compelling by their clarity of thought and uniqueness of expression and their ability to communicate original, stimulating ideas, making us see familiar things in a new light. Epstein, for example, can write on literary personalities as well as personal topics we all think we know about but do not really. Everyone in my pantheon of great essayists is a superb writer with a distinctive and memorable style.

AM: I recently interviewed James Elkins, a law professor at West Virginia University, here on this site, and he talked about lawyer poets and said that “our iconic images of lawyer and of poet are put to the test when we think about one person writing poems and practicing law.” You have something to say about this seeming double life. “Writing,” you say, is “part of my double life. I have a life other than the lawyer’s life I lead on the surface. The two sides—law and writing—reinforce and complement each other.” I’ve heard the phrase “the two worlds” problem used to describe the lawyer who is also a writer. But this doesn’t seem to be a problem for you, does it?

DJK: A lawyer IS a writer. Writing is most of what a lawyer does. To be a good lawyer, one needs to be a good writer. Verbal facility, sensibility to language, and lucid thinking are prerequisites for both. A legal brief and a piece of expository writing have much in common. Both have a point to make to persuade the reader. Both rely on effectively marshaling evidence to demonstrate the correctness of a particular perspective. The topics may differ, but the skill and technique are similar. The problem facing the lawyer-writer is more one of time and energy and desire than anything else. Law is a demanding profession, which means taking time off to do anything else cuts into one’s otherwise free moments. But if you want to write, you make the time.

AM: I’m curious, when did your love of literature begin? Did you have an “aha!” moment, or did the love evolve over time?

DJK: I cannot recall ever not loving literature. My paternal grandfather was a printer at Scribner’s and when I was a little boy he gave me four books by Robert Louis Stevenson that my grandfather had himself set in type in 1907. I gave Treasure Island to my son and Kidnapped to my daughter, and still have the other precious two volumes on my shelves.

I remember my father taking me as a youngster to the Public Library at Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street to get my first library card. In those days, the main building had a circulation department, and my father’s choice for my first library book was, of course, Tom Sawyer, a good choice for a ten-year old boy.

I remember as a teenager reading as much as I could in addition to books assigned in school. There were nights spent, in classic fashion, with a flashlight under the covers after bed time.

Inspiring teachers helped too.

AM: You’ve written a lot on Shakespeare. How did your fascination with him come about?

DJK: Like most people, I first met Shakespeare in high school English classes. Luckily for me, around the same time New York had a summer program of free Shakespeare in Central Park, which continues to this day. Starting in the summer of my junior year in high school — 1963 — I began to see two of Shakespeare’s plays every summer. It was at one of those performances — Measure for Measure in 1985 — that the passion grabbed me. I was 37 years old and had been practicing law for 12 years. As I sat watching Measure for Measure, I realized for the first time how much the play was about law, and that recognition — the “fascination” you refer to — set me off on a project that would last years. First, I wrote a short essay about Measure for Measure for the New York Law Journal, our daily legal newspaper. Then, months later, I saw a production of The Merchant of Venice and wrote another essay. From there, one thing led to another, and before long, I had the makings of a book.

I reread the plays I had read as a student and read many others for the first time. Then I read as much as I could find about Shakespeare and the law. The result was my 1994 book called Kill All The Lawyers? Shakespeare’s Legal Appeal.

I am still fascinated by Shakespeare. Each time I read or see one of his great plays, I get something new out of it.

AM: Many essays in Loose Sallies concern politics, law, government, and current events. You discuss the Founders, Holmes, Bill Clinton, Hugo Black, Steve Jobs, Ayn Rand—all sorts of people and even some decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. You manage to do so without coming across as overtly political, polemical, or tendentious. How and why?

DJK: It is a question of style and goal. Every one of the essays has a thesis, some of which may even be controversial. The idea is to persuade your reader to accept your thesis, and that requires care and sensitivity, logic and demonstration, not name-calling or verbal table-pounding. If I am “overtly political, polemical or tendentious,” I will probably not convince anyone who does not already agree with me. A writer has to be smoother and subtler. We live in a country right now riven by political and cultural partisanship. Public controversy today between “red” and “blue” is almost always shrill. A reader tires of it; it becomes almost an assault on our sensibilities. To reach people’s hearts and minds, you have to credit both sides of an issue but explain patiently and show convincingly why you think one side is more correct than another. I am not running for public office so I have no “base” to appeal to. But I can at least try to keep the tone of the debates I engage in civil and pleasant.

AM: Do you consider the essays on these topics literary essays?

DJK:Most of the essays in Loose Sallies are not about so-called “literary” topics. True, one is about the literary style of Supreme Court opinions, and two discuss Justice Holmes’s opinion-writing style. But they are exceptions. So I do not think the essays for the most part are “literary” in that narrow sense. Nor do I think they are “literary” by way of being precious or mannered. I genuinely hope, however, that they are “literary” in the sense of being clear, crisp, well-written statements on a variety of topics of interest to all Americans today.

AM: Thank you for taking the time to do this interview. Loose Sallies has been enjoyable for me. I keep it on my desk in the office so that, when I need a ten-minute break, I can open it and read an essay. I slowly made my way through the entire book in this manner: a break here, a break there, and then, one day, I was finished. I really appreciate all that you have done not just for the law, but for arts and literature. It’s nice to know there are lawyers out there like you.

Lines to Holmes

In America, Arts & Letters, Creative Writing, Humanities, Jurisprudence, Law, Law-and-Literature, Literature, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Poetry, Writing on May 14, 2014 at 8:45 am

Allen 2

Lines to Holmes

A canon of rules and principles,

embodied in individual cases,

aggregated by judges

from different courts

and with different ranks,

makes up the common law system.

Perhaps the better way to put it

is that the common law is a canon

unto itself.

Rules and principles

that regulate people

are always engaged in a struggle for existence,

always subject to challenge and subversion

by the trends and movements of culture.

Tested by their ability

to obtain to society

and to yield constructive results,

they compete with one another

and become canonized

only if they prove

fit to survive the test of time,

the onslaught of new technologies,

which necessitate new approaches

to lawyering.

This is the law of the law

today as always.

Holmes and the Pragmatic Common Law

In America, American History, Arts & Letters, History, Humanities, Jurisprudence, Law, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Philosophy, Pragmatism, Scholarship, The Supreme Court on May 7, 2014 at 8:45 am

Allen 2

No summary could do justice to the wealth of literature about Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s relationship to C.S. Peirce, William James, and John Dewey, but a few points of commonality are worth mentioning. First, Holmes was akin to Peirce in the embrace of fallibilism and the scientific method. Holmes disliked natural law thinkers because they purported to know the truth about the law by way of reason or moral teaching. In contrast, Holmes believed that the common law gradually filtered out the most workable, although not necessarily the most moral, theories; in fact, he felt that it was not the province, expertise, or training of the judge to explore issues of morality. He also believed that truth was best determined by a community of inquiring minds rather than by a judge ruling in isolation or by a justice with only eight colleagues to help work through his or her analysis. Therefore, he adhered to the doctrine of judicial restraint and deferred to statutes enacted by legislatures, which consisted of representatives elected by and accountable to the people.

Second, his notion of truth was like James’s: fluid but ultimately associated with the conglomerate views of a majority that have been tested and corroborated by concrete evidence. Holmes did not share James’s optimism, but he did share his literary sparkle. He also shared James’s meliorism and pluralism. The Common Law is a testament to the melioristic nature of the common law system. Holmes’s judicial restraint and deference to local legislatures, moreover, attest to his recognition of diverse local communities and associations that enable social cooperation and legal growth.

Third, Holmes’s celebration of the instrumentalism of the common law smacks of Dewey’s instrumentalism and its Darwinian complements. Like Dewey, Holmes moved pragmatism away from the science, logic, and mathematics that intrigued Peirce, away from the moral psychology and religious vibrancy that intrigued James, and towards the social and political considerations that intrigued Dewey. Holmes and Dewey were, to some degree, consequentialists; they cannot be made out as pure utilitarians—far from it—but their analyses do tend to focus on the importance of outcomes to the evaluation of human action. Finally, Holmes and Dewey emphasized the value of experiment and were majoritarian in that they maintained faith in the ability of distinct communities to arrive at unique solutions to pressing social issues and to memorialize those solutions in official legislation.

These three pragmatist influences enabled Holmes to create a theory of the common law unique to him that both accounted for and distanced itself from the legal positivism of John Austin and Hobbes, who traditionally have been thought of as adversaries of common law theory.

Legal Positivism and the Common Law

In Britain, History, Humanities, Jurisprudence, Law, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Philosophy, Western Philosophy on April 30, 2014 at 8:45 am

Allen 2

Legal positivism, in the most basic sense, holds that laws are the manifestation of sovereign commands. It stands in contradistinction to natural law or the judicial conformity with human reason that supposedly defines the common law.[i] Legal positivism generally rebuffs the premise that law and morals are necessarily or even customarily united. Legal positivists from Jeremy Bentham to John Austin to H.L.A. Hart maintained or implied that the formal source of the law was human promulgation, not nature or divine decree; theirs was an analytical jurisprudence that treated the normative function of the law as imposing rules and duties upon the subjects of the sovereign. Positivism generally holds that law is logical and analytical and made up of legislative policies with a linear history that can be understood through utilitarian calculation. To comprehend the law in the positivist paradigm requires analyzing the signification of words as grammatical imperatives—as “commands,” in Austin’s lexicon.

The common law, on the other hand, traditionally was seen as the vast accumulation of judicial decisions as against the commands of legislatures or the unbinding whims of equity courts; a legislative code announces rules whereas judicial decisions follow, clarify, and sustain them. The common law is a body of cases, a growing organism representing the general rules and inherited customs of the jurisdiction. It is simultaneously conservative and progressive. It comes together over time as innumerable judges and justices struggle with and against precedent to apply longstanding rules to new and unique situations. It responds and reacts to cultural norms rather than making them.

What distinguishes the common law from a civil law system is the doctrine of stare decisis (“let the decision stand”), which requires judges to follow precedents established by prior decisions or to distinguish the facts of new cases from the facts of previous cases in order to reach an applicable rule. Certain rules persevere because they triumph over lesser practices that have not worked. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., explained that this process of creating and sustaining laws in graduated stages does not always make sense or produce the perfect outcome: “In form its growth is logical. The official theory is that each new decision follows syllogistically from existing precedents. But just as the clavicle in the cat only tells of the existence of some earlier creature to which a collar-bone was useful, precedents survive in the law long after the use they once served is at an end and the reason for them has been forgotten.” If some laws seem to be artifacts, Holmes qualifies, they are not likely to burden the people subject to them, for their effect is in their use, and anyway it is only a matter of time before they are overgrown by the “secret root from which the law draws all the juices of life,” which is to say the legislature.

 

Note

[i] The literature on this subject is enormous. The distinction between legal positivism, natural law, and the common law has been the object of discussion among so many jurists and jurisprudents over centuries that it is impossible to recommend a single text on the topic that would clarify all competing views. The most authoritative voice on matters of positivism today is probably Joseph Raz.

 

What Crisis? Law as the Marriage of Science and the Humanities

In Academia, Arts & Letters, Humanities, Jurisprudence, Law, Law-and-Literature, Legal Education & Pedagogy, News and Current Events, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Philosophy, Scholarship, The Academy on March 12, 2014 at 8:45 am

Allen 2

This week the Association for the Study of Law, Culture & the Humanities convened to consider this question: “How will law and humanities scholarship fare against the pressure of the science and technology paradigm that has now permeated the institutional frameworks of academia?”  The question implies an adversarial relationship between science and the humanities, or law-and-humanities.  The division between science and the humanities as academic disciplines, however, is not yet 150 years old; it is misguided to pit “law-and-humanities” (a signifier that did not exist a few decades ago) against the “science and technology paradigm that has now permeated the institutional frameworks of academia” (another quotation from the conference program).  We do not have to go back to Plato or Aristotle or Galileo or Descartes or Spinoza or Da Vinci or Locke or Hume or Rousseau or Kant or Newton or Adam Smith or Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson or Thoreau to see that what we call the humanities has not, traditionally, been divorced from the sciences—that, in fact, the humanities and the sciences are mutually illuminating, not mutually exclusive.

In America, more recently, the classical pragmatists—in particular C.S. Peirce and William James—sought to make philosophy more scientific, and in this endeavor they were mimicking the logical positivists in Britain.  Some of the most famous minds of the 20th century worked at the intersection of the humanities and science: Freud, Einstein, Michael Polanyi, Karl Popper, Jacques Lacan, F. A. Hayek, and Noam Chomsky, to name a few.  Lately we have seen scientific thinkers as wide-ranging as Steven Pinker, E. O. Wilson, Jared Diamond, and Leon Kass celebrate or draw from the humanities.

A review of the conference abstracts suggests that most presenters will be considering this question from the political left, but their concerns are shared by many on the right, such as Roger Scruton, who recently took to the pages of The New Atlantis to address this topic in his article “Scientism in the Arts and Humanities.”  Nevertheless, forcing the separation of science and the humanities does not strike me as prudent.

By encouraging the humanities to recognize its scientific heritage and to recover its scientific methodologies, the academy would be correcting decades of wandering.  Science is indispensable to the humanities, and vice versa; the two work in concert.  The findings in one influence the findings in the other.  Evidence of this reciprocity in the context of legal studies is especially striking in America during the late 19th and early 20th century, when the law often was associated with scientific disciplines rather than with the humanities.  At this time, the theories of Charles Darwin and his progeny helped to explain the common law tradition while influencing the way that law was taught in law schools and examined by judges and most notably by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

The scientific paradigms in vogue among legal thinkers at the turn of that century were neither uniform nor monolithic.  For instance, Christopher Columbus Langdell’s push to make legal education more scientific was different from Holmes’s use of Darwinism to describe the common law.  Rather than teasing out the distinctions between various scientific approaches to the law during the late 19th and early 20th century America, however, I would look at these scientific approaches as part of the same general project and as a reminder of how the humanities and the sciences can participate to bring about theoretical and practical insights.  It might be that, of all disciplines, law is the most revealing of the participatory nature of science and the humanities and, therefore, provides the best justification for instrumental and scientific approaches to humane studies.

There are groups within the humanities that resent the scientific disciplines for the funding and privilege those disciplines enjoy in the academic marketplace, but at least part of this resentment is misplaced.  The fault lies partially with the scientists who mistake merit for value: it is not that the sciences enjoy more funding and privilege because they have more merit—the academy is not a meritocracy—but it is that they have more value to consumers and the public writ large.  It may well be that the humanities have more merit, but unless consumers begin to value merit, the meritorious will not necessarily prevail in the market.  

%d bloggers like this: