United States Reports

McLoughlin v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Co., 191 U.S. 267 (1903), was a United States Supreme Court ruling dealing with copyright. It dealt with the interpretation of Section 4963 of the Revised Statutes of the United States before and after the pertinent section's amendment in 1897.

Mifflin v. R. H. White Co., 190 U.S. 260 (1903), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the authorized appearance of a work in a magazine without a copyright notice specifically dedicated to that work transfers that work into the public domain. Its opinion was also applied to the next case, Mifflin v. Dutton.

Mifflin v. Dutton, 190 U.S. 265 (1903), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the authorized appearance of a work in a magazine without a copyright notice specifically dedicated to that work transfers that work into the public domain.

Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903), popularly known as the Japanese Immigrant Case, is a Supreme Court of the United States case about the federal government's power to exclude and deport certain classes of alien immigrants under the Immigration Act of 1891. The Supreme Court held that the courts may not interfere with a pending deportation unless the administrative hearing was unfair. However, deportation procedures are subject to constitutional scrutiny, under the Due Process Clause. The case was the first time that the Supreme Court allowed judicial review of a procedural due process claim.

Shurtleff v. United States, 189 U.S. 311 (1903), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the President's removal power under the Appointments Clause.

Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475 (1903), was an early 20th-century United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a state constitution's requirements for voter registration and qualifications. Although the plaintiff accused the state of discriminating in practice against black citizens, the Court found that the requirements applied to all citizens and refused to review the results "in practice," which it considered overseeing the state's process. As there was no stated intent in law to disenfranchise blacks, the Court upheld the state law. The African-American educator Booker T. Washington secretly arranged for funding and representation for Jackson W. Giles in this lawsuit and the ensuing Giles v. Teasley (1904).

Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Company, 188 U.S. 239 (1903), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court found that advertisements were protected by copyright. The case is now cited for the proposition that commercial speech can be protected by copyright.

Champion v. Ames, 188 U.S. 321 (1903), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that trafficking lottery tickets constituted interstate commerce that could be regulated by the U.S. Congress under the Commerce Clause.

United States v. Williams may refer to any of the following United States Supreme Court decisions: United States v. Williams (1880), 154 U.S., Appx. 652 (1880) United States v. Williams (1906), 188 U.S. 485 United States v. Williams (1929), 278 U.S. 255 (1929) United States v. Williams (1937), 302 U.S. 46 (1937) United States v. Williams (1951), 341 U.S. 70 (1951), holding that a federal statute against conspiracy to deprive an individual of rights under color of law applied only to the federal government United States v. Williams (1992), 504 U.S. 36 (1992), holding that the federal courts do not have the supervisory power to require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury United States v. Williams (1995), 514 U.S. 227 (1995) United States v.

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case brought against the US government by the Kiowa chief Lone Wolf, who charged that Native American tribes under the Medicine Lodge Treaty had been defrauded of land by Congressional actions in violation of the treaty. The Court declared that the "plenary power" of the United States Congress gave it authority to abrogate treaty obligations between the United States and Native American tribes unilaterally. The decision marked a departure from the holdings of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832), which had shown greater respect for the autonomy of Native American tribes.

Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 294 (1902) was a US Supreme Court case that decided the US Congress has the power to pass legislation that controls the actions and property of tribal states without their consent. The Cherokee Nation brought this case against the Secretary of the Interior because the Secretary authorized mineral and oil leases on Cherokee land, an action Congress had authorized by legislation. The Cherokee Nation argued that this action violated the treaty rights promised by the US to their Indian nation. In their decision, the Court stated this was out of the Court’s power as it was a question for the legislative branch to determine, not the judicial.

Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902), was a United States Supreme Court case which held constitutional state laws requiring the involuntary quarantine of individuals to prevent the spread of disease. Louisiana's quarantine laws, Justice Edward White said, were a reasonable exercise of the state's police power that conflicted with neither the Dormant Commerce Clause nor the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In dissent, Justice Henry Billings Brown, joined by John Marshall Harlan, agreed that while quarantine laws were constitutional, Louisiana's went beyond the scope of the state's authority over interstate commerce, even violating several treaties between the United States and other nations.

Hotema v. United States, 186 U.S. 413 (1902), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the jury instruction regarding the defendant's potential insanity plea satisfied the M'Naghten rule.

Kansas v. Colorado is a longstanding litigation before the Supreme Court of the United States between US states: Kansas and Colorado regarding the payment for the use of the Arkansas River. The Court has rendered numerous opinions on the case: Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U.S. 125 (1902) Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46 (1907) Colorado v. Kansas, 320 U.S. 383 (1943) Kansas v. Colorado, 514 U.S. 673 (1995) Kansas v. Colorado, 533 U.S. 1 (2001) Kansas v. Colorado, 543 U.S. 86 (2004) Kansas v. Colorado, 556 U.S. 98 (2009) When two states have a controversy between each other, the case is filed for original jurisdiction with the US Supreme Court. It is one of the very limited circumstances in which the court acts with original jurisdiction, as a trial court.

DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1 (1901), was one of a group of the first Insular Cases decided by the US Supreme Court. The case was argued on January 8–11, 1901 and was decided on May 27, 1901.

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), was a case in which the US Supreme Court decided whether US territories were subject to the provisions and protections of the US Constitution. The issue is sometimes stated as whether the Constitution follows the flag. The decision narrowly held that the Constitution does not necessarily apply to territories. Instead, the US Congress has jurisdiction to create law within territories in certain circumstances, particularly those dealing with revenue, which would not be allowed by the Constitution for US states. It has become known as one of the "Insular Cases".

Montoya v. United States (180 U.S. 261), was a 1901 decision of the United States Supreme Court. The decision was unanimous, with the opinion authored by Justice Henry Billings Brown. This United States Supreme court case came about when the surviving partner of the firm of E. Montoya & Sons petitioned against the United States and the Mescalero Apache Indians for the value their livestock which was taken in March 1880. It was believed that the livestock was taken by "Victorio's Band" which was a group of these American Indians. It was argued that the group of American Indians who had taken the livestock were distinct from any other American Indian tribal group, and therefore the Mescalero Apache American Indian tribe should not be held responsible for what had occurred.

Hawley v. Diller, 178 U.S. 476 (1900), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. The primary issue was the Timber and Stone Act of 1878, which allowed the equivalent of homesteading on land suitable for logging and quarrying. The Supreme Court held that the government had validly rescinded an earlier grant of property, and Hawley and his colitigants were not protected under the act's bona fide purchaser protection. The case is notable, however, for its inclusion of an apparently erroneous syllabus.

Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548 (1900), was a case heard before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 30 and May 1, 1900, to decide the outcome of the disputed Kentucky gubernatorial election of 1899. The litigants were Republican gubernatorial candidate William S. Taylor and Democratic lieutenant gubernatorial candidate J. C. W. Beckham. In the November 7, 1899, election, Taylor received 193,714 votes to Democrat William Goebel's 191,331. This result was certified by a 2–1 decision of the state's Board of Elections. Goebel challenged the election results on the basis of alleged voting irregularities, and the Democrat-controlled Kentucky General Assembly formed a committee to investigate Goebel's claims.

Quackenbush v. United States, 177 U.S. 20 (1900), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the court held that The appointment of an officer of the United States and the issuance of his commission are distinct acts. Appointments must be made as required by law and the commission cannot alter these requirements.

Boske v. Comingore, 177 U.S. 459 (1900), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an officer of an executive agency may exercise executive privilege to deny a subpoena from a federal court, and the head of that agency may issue a regulation requiring any such disclosure to be approved by that agency head.

Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (1900), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an individual had the right to use force to resist an unlawful arrest and was entitled to a jury instruction to that effect. In 1899, a tribal police officer, John Bad Elk, shot and killed another tribal police officer who was attempting to arrest Bad Elk without a warrant, on a misdemeanor charge, for a crime allegedly committed outside of the presence of the arresting officer. The Supreme Court reversed his conviction, noting that a person had the right to resist an unlawful arrest, and in the case of a death, murder may be reduced to manslaughter. The Supreme Court held the arrest to be unlawful due, in part, to the lack of a valid warrant.

Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 (1900), is a United States Supreme Court decision which addressed two questions relating to the Due Process Clause: first, whether Utah's practice of allowing prosecutors to directly file criminal charges without a grand jury (this practice goes by the confusing name of information) was consistent with due process, and second, whether Utah's use of eight jurors instead of twelve in "courts of general jurisdiction" was constitutional.

The Paquete Habana; The Lola, 175 U.S. 677 (1900), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the applicability and recognition of international law by the United States. The Court held that the capture of fishing vessels as prizes of war violated customary international law, which is integrated with U.S. law and binding as such. Paquete Habana influenced subsequent court decisions that incorporated international law regarding other matters. The case is also notable for citing a wide breadth of historical and international sources, including jurists from around the world and foreign state practices going back centuries.

Brady v. Daly, 175 U.S. 148 (1899), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the common law circuit court did have jurisdiction over the copyright infringement case because the statutory damages were not a penalty or forfeiture. This case is related to Webster v. Daly. They arose from the same set of copyright infringement disputes regarding Under the Gaslight by Augustin Daly. The United States abolished the circuit court system involved in Webster v. Daly in 1912. The modern analog would be the district courts.

Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U.S. 172 (1899), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that the use of a struck jury did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

Addyston Pipe and Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 211 (1899), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that for a restraint of trade to be lawful, it must be ancillary to the main purpose of a lawful contract. A naked restraint on trade is unlawful; it is not a defense that the restraint is reasonable.

Bolles v. Outing Co., 175 U.S. 262 (1899), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held under the Revised Statutes of the United States, someone seeking damages for copyright infringement is only eligible for damages from illicit copies found in the accused's possession. Copies already distributed are out of scope.

Malony v. Adsit, 175 U.S. 281 (1899), is a United States Supreme Court case involving a land lot in the city of Juneau, Alaska. In resolving the land dispute it was held that a bill of exceptions could only be considered if authenticated by the judge who sat on the trial. John F. Malony and Ohlin H. Adsit, the litigants involved, both later became mayors of the city of Juneau. The case was originally tried before Arthur K. Delaney, a United States district judge for the District of Alaska, who later became the first mayor of Juneau. The lower court sustained Adsit's claim to the property, located at the corner of Franklin and Second Streets in Juneau. Malony was the appellant in the case.

La Abra Silver Mining Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 423 (1899), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a law is not invalid when a president signs it during a Congressional recess, so long as it is signed within 10 days.

Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528 (1899), ("Richmond") was a class action suit decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is a landmark case, in that it sanctioned de jure segregation of races in American schools. The decision was overruled by Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

Holmes v. Hurst, 174 U.S. 82 (1899), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that when someone begins printing a serial book in a magazine, they may file for copyright of the entire book even if the book does not exist as a completed whole. Failing that, the book is in the public domain, as expected. Specifically, the Court found that The Autocrat of the Breakfast-Table by Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. had entered the public domain because of its publication in Atlantic Monthly without copyright notices or an attempt to register a copyright.

Morris v. United States, 174 U.S. 196 (1899), is a 5-to-2 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the bed under the Potomac River between the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Virginia belonged to the United States government rather than nearby private landowners on the District of Columbia side.

United States v. Johnson, 173 U.S. 363 (1899), was a United States Supreme Court case.

Cooper v. Newell, 173 U.S. 555 (1899), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the final decision of a state court that claimed general jurisdiction over a defendant may be collaterally attacked in federal court on the basis that the state court needed personal jurisdiction instead. Cooper upheld the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act of 1891 under the Full Faith and Credit Clause because that Congress may prescribe the general rules of how federal courts may recognize state court decisions.

City of Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Company, 172 U.S. 1 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Walla Walla Water Company filed a bill to stop the City of Walla Walla from erecting waterworks, acquiring property to erect waterworks, or using city money to build waterworks.

Andersen v. Treat, 172 U.S. 24 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court case in which John Andersen was convicted of the murder of William Wallace Sanders, who was his mate on the ship Olive Pecket. Andersen was found guilty and sentenced to death, but petitioned the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia for a writ of habeas corpus, under the claim that he had been deprived of his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the Court affirming the order of the lower court.

Smyth v. Ames, 171 U.S. 361 (1898), also called The Maximum Freight Case, was an 1898 United States Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court voided a Nebraska railroad tariff law, declaring that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that it takes property without the due process of law. The Court defined the constitutional limits of governmental power to set railroad and utility rates by stating that regulated industries have the right to a "fair return". The ruling was later overturned in Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Company (1944). The decision in Smyth v. Ames was unanimous and Justice John M. Harlan delivered the opinion of the Court in writing.

Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189 (1898), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a New York state law preventing convicted felons from practicing medicine, even when the felony conviction occurred before the law was enacted.

Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U.S. 213 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case that reviewed provisions of the 1890 Mississippi constitution and its statutes that set requirements for voter registration, including poll tax, literacy tests, the grandfather clause, and the requirement that only registered voters could serve on juries. The plaintiff, Henry Williams, claimed that Mississippi's voting laws were upheld with the intent to disenfranchise African Americans, thus violating the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court did not find discrimination in the state's laws because, even though the laws made discrimination possible, the laws themselves did not discriminate against African Americans.

Barrett v. United States, 169 U.S. 218 (1898), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that South Carolina had never effectively been subdivided into separate judicial districts. Therefore, it was held, a criminal defendant allegedly tried in one district for a crime committed in the other had in fact been permissibly been tried in a separate division of a single district.

United States v. Eaton, 169 U.S. 331 (1898), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving the Appointments Clause holding that the United States Congress had the power to authorize the President of the United States to recognize a temporary diplomatic official during a period of unavailability of the congressionally approved appointee to the position. In October 1890, Sempronius H. Boyd was commissioned as Minister Resident and Consul General of the United States to Siam. He qualified and proceeded to his post, but became seriously ill in June 1892. Boyd was granted a leave of absence by the President, and before leaving Siam, Boyd asked a resident American missionary, Lewis A. Eaton, to take charge of the consulate and its archives.

Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 (1898), is a US labor law case in which the US Supreme Court held a limitation on working time for miners and smelters as constitutional.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China" became "at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution." Wong Kim Ark was the first Supreme Court case to decide on the status of children born in the United States to alien parents.

Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 (1897), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that an alleged confession to a crime, in order to be admissible, must not be obtained by threats or violence, nor by any direct or implied promises, however slight. The decision was based on the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, which meant that confessions deemed involuntary were excluded from federal criminal trials.

Davis v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43 (1897), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States sustained a conviction of a man for making a speech on Boston Common in violation of an ordinance that forbade the making of a public address there without a permit from the mayor.

United States v. Bell Telephone Co., 167 U.S. 224 (1897), is an 1897 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held that the United States lacked standing to challenge the validity of its issued patents “on the mere ground of error of judgment” in issuing them. The United States had standing to seek to invalidate patents, however, on grounds of fraudulent procurement and also as a defense to a charge of patent infringement. The decision operated for many decades as a bar to government efforts to seek invalidation of patents that it considered spurious until the Supreme Court limited Bell Telephone, first to a limited extent in United States v. United States Gypsum Co., and then more broadly in United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd.

Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 324 (1897), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the Appointments Clause. The question before the Court was whether the President had the power to remove a district attorney appointed to a four-year term. Beginning with the history of the Decision of 1789, the Court recounted how Vice-President John Adams cast the tie-breaking vote of the First Congress to "[settle] the question of constitutional power in favor of the President".

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Co., 167 U.S. 479 (1897), also called the Queen and Crescent Case, was an important early US Supreme Court case in the development of American administrative law.

Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 166 U.S. 185 (1897), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held State taxes on the intangible property of corporations are constitutional, including "all corporate franchises and contracts, privileges, and goodwill of the concern."