Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

protest

Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court

Definitions from Case Law

From 244 U.S. 174 - Franklin Lane v. Svan Hoglund · 1917Most cited · 173 citing opinions

public land

The term 'protest' has been commonly used to designate any complaint or objection, whether by a public agent or a private citizen, which is intended to be and is made the basis of some action or proceeding in the public right against an existing entry.

How the Supreme Court has restated “protest”

1821184018601880190019201925 most cited: 244 U.S. 174 - Franklin Lane v. Svan Hoglund (1917)
first stateddeparted

Each Supreme Court definition of “protest,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.

How often courts cite the cases defining “protest”

18201850190019502000202092

Court decisions citing the 3 opinions that defined “protest” — 216 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.

All 3 definitions, chronological · 1821–1925

  1. 1821·19 U.S. 572 - Union Bank v. Hyde[p7]· cited 19×
    ORIGINAL

    The protest belongs altogether to foreign mercantile transactions, upon which, on the contrary, it is an indispensable incident to making a drawer of a bill, or endorser of a note, liable. On foreign bills, it is the evidence of demand, and an indispensable step towards the legal notice of non-payment, in consequence of which the undertaking of the drawer or endorser becomes absolute. Hence, as to foreign transactions, it is justly predicated of a protest, that it has a legal or binding effect. But the writing under consideration has reference, exclusively, to inland bills, and as to them, the protest has no legal or binding effect.

    foreign vs inland bills

  2. While a 'protest' has no definite legal significance in connection with the receipt of money—being ordinarily used in connection with the involuntary payment of money under legal compulsion or duress—it may nevertheless be effective as an indication of non-acquiescence in the receipt of the amount paid as a final settlement of the claim.