United States Reports

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897), was a ruling that determined the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required states to provide just compensation for seizing private property.

United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U.S. 290 (1897), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Sherman Act (which was an antitrust measure that prohibited anticompetitive behavior in commerce) applied to the railroad industry, even though the U.S. Congress had enacted a comprehensive regime of regulations for that industry.

American Publishing Co. v. Fisher, 166 U.S. 464 (1897), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Utah Territory's failure to require unanimity in their civil juries violated the Seventh Amendment and the territory's organic act.

Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States in which a unanimous bench struck down a Louisiana statute for violating an individual's liberty of contract. It was the first case in which the Supreme Court interpreted the word liberty in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to mean economic liberty. The decision marked the beginning of the Lochner era during which the Supreme Court struck many state regulations for infringing on an individual's right to contract. The Lochner era lasted 40 years and ended when West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish was decided in 1937.

Press Publishing Co. v. Monroe, 164 U.S. 105 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the circuit court's decision was valid due to the case's diversity jurisdiction. They dismissed the case because a Supreme Court petition must invoke the Constitution or the laws of the United States, and the common law copyright claim did neither.

Prairie State Bank v. United States, 164 U.S. 227 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an equitable claim by a surety to percentages of payment retained by the federal government has priority over the claim of an assignee-lender.

Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case that, among other things, approved the use of a jury instruction intended to prevent a hung jury by encouraging jurors in the minority to reconsider. The Court affirmed Alexander Allen's murder conviction, having vacated his two prior convictions for the same crime. Such an instruction became known as an Allen charge and is given when, after deliberation, a jury reports that it is deadlocked and unable to decide on a verdict. Because it is used to dislodge jurors from entrenched positions, the Allen charge is sometimes referred to as the "dynamite charge" or the "hammer charge." Allen is based upon the Supreme Court's supervisory power over the federal courts. Thus, it is not binding on state courts.

Webster v. Daly, 163 U.S. 155 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over cases appealed from the circuit courts. The case was dismissed. This case was related to Brady 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 is the district courts.

Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a trial whenever a statute imposes a punishment of imprisonment at hard labor on an alien. A punishment of hard labor is not within Congress' plenary power, even if the alien is subject to deportation. The case began in 1892 when Wong Wing and three other Chinese nationals were arrested for unlawful presence in the United States, violating the Geary Act. A commissioner of the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Michigan sentenced the four men to 60 days imprisonment at hard labor, after which they would be deported to China. After the prisoners' petitions for writs of habeas corpus were denied, the Supreme Court granted cert.

Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 (1896), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case, in which the court decided that the individual rights protections, which limit federal, and later, state governments, do not apply to tribal government. It reaffirmed earlier decisions, such as the 1831 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia case, that gave Indian tribes the status of "domestic dependent nations," the sovereignty of which is independent of the federal government.

Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504 (1896), is a United States Supreme Court case argued on March 11–12, 1896, and decided on May 25, 1896. The case concerned the right of the Bannock people to hunt on unoccupied land per an 1868 treaty with the U.S. The case was decided in favor of the state of Wyoming and set a precedent that state laws had precedence over Indian treaties, massively checking tribal sovereignty and giving the Supreme Court the right to determine Congress’s implicit intentions when signing Indian Treaties. The case influenced many twentieth century cases dealing with hunting rights, conservation, and state’s rights and the precedent it set wasn’t overturned until 2019 in Herrera v. Wyoming.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision ruling that racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal". The decision legitimized the many "Jim Crow laws" re-establishing racial segregation that had been passed in the American South after the end of the Reconstruction era in 1877. The underlying case began in 1892 when Homer Plessy, a mixed-race man, deliberately boarded a whites-only train car in New Orleans. By boarding the whites-only car, Plessy violated Louisiana's Separate Car Act of 1890, which required "equal, but separate" railroad accommodations for white and black passengers.

Lucas v. United States, 163 U.S. 612 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that whether a Black Freedman was a member of the Choctaw Nation was a question of fact for the jury, and his non-Indian status may not be presumed.

United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662 (1896), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a criminal conviction declared void on appeal does not count as a prosecution under the Double Jeopardy Clause. It was one of the earliest Supreme Court cases interpreting the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy, 162 U.S. 283 (1896), was the first litigation of aboriginal title in the United States by a tribal plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the United States since Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831). It was the first such litigation by an indigenous plaintiff since Fellows v. Blacksmith (1857) and its companion case of New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble (1858). The New York courts held that the 1788 Phelps and Gorham Purchase did not violate the Nonintercourse Act, one of the provisions of which prohibits purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government, and that (even if it did) the Seneca Nation of Indians was barred by the state statute of limitations from challenging the transfer of title. The U.S.

Graver v. Faurot, (162 U.S. 435), is a case decided in 1896 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on the issues of res judicata and fraud on the court. The Seventh Circuit had heard the case the preceding year but, like the district court that had previously heard it, was unable to decide which of two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases was controlling. After the Supreme Court denied certiorari to resolve the issue, on procedural grounds, the Seventh Circuit resolved the case itself. The case had arisen from an 1889 investment made by Graver in a company recommended by Faurot, a banker he was acquainted with. Represented to Graver as promising, the company was actually worthless.

Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29 (1896), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court dealing with the concept of obscenity. In a decision written by Justice Harlan, the Court upheld the conviction of the defendant to 13 months hard labor and a fine of $1 for allegedly using the United States Postal Service to send material that was deemed "obscene, lewd and lascivious".

Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court decision, which dealt with the transportation of wild fowl over state lines. Geer held that the states owned the wild animals within their borders and could strictly regulate their management and harvest.

United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry. Co., 160 U.S. 668 (1896), was a case to prevent trolley operations on the Gettysburg Battlefield. The dispute began in August 1891 when the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association's board approved attorney Samuel Swope's motion to deny trolley right-of-way along GBMA roads. Despite the 1896 US Supreme Court ruling that the railway could be seized for historic preservation, as well as earlier legislative efforts to appropriate federal acquisition funds, create a War Department commission, and form the Gettysburg National Military Park; the trolley continued operations until obsolete in 1916.

Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469 (1895), is a criminal case establishing that in a federal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proof of sanity if an insanity defense is raised. It is a common law ruling that sets precedent in federal court, but is not a constitutional ruling interpreting the United States Constitution, so does not preclude states from requiring defendants to prove insanity, even to the point of requiring defendants to prove insanity beyond a reasonable doubt, as in Leland v. Oregon (1951).

Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the recognition and enforceability of a foreign judgment rested on the "comity of nations," namely whether there would be any reciprocity and mutual recognition by the foreign jurisdiction from which the judgment was issued. Hilton established the fundamental basis for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the United States, remaining "the most detailed exposition of any American court" on this principle. It is also viewed as the quintessential statement of comity in international law, and is one of the earliest decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court to assert that international law is part of U.S. law.

Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U.S. 538 (1895), was a United States Supreme Court decision about the finality of administrative decisions concerning admission of foreigners to the United States, which built upon Nishimura Ekiu v. United States (1892), and strengthened the doctrine of administrative finality in United States immigration and nationality law announced in Nishimura Ekiu.

Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550 (1895), is a United States Supreme Court case in which self-defense in a homicide case was found not to require a duty to retreat.

In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564 (1895), was a labor law case of the United States Supreme Court, which upheld a contempt of court conviction against Eugene V. Debs. Debs had the American Railway Union continue its 1894 Pullman Strike in violation of a federal injunction ordering labor unions back to work. The Supreme Court held that the federal government's Postal and Commerce Clause authority includes the ability to regulate the labor conditions of railways.

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), affirmed on rehearing, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States. In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the income tax imposed by the Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act for being an unapportioned direct tax. This decision was superseded in 1913 by the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows Congress to levy income taxes without apportioning them among the states. The US Congress had introduced an income tax during the American Civil War, but the tax was repealed in 1872.

United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 (1895), also known as the "Sugar Trust Case," was a United States Supreme Court antitrust case that severely limited the federal government's power to pursue antitrust actions under the Sherman Antitrust Act. In Chief Justice Melville Fuller's majority opinion, the Court held that the U.S. Congress could not regulate manufacturing and thus gave state governments the sole power to take legal action against manufacturing monopolies. The case was the Supreme Court's first interpretation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The case has never been overruled, but in Swift & Co. v. United States and subsequent cases, the Court has held that Congress can regulate manufacturing when it affects interstate commerce.

Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895), or Sparf and Hansen v. United States, was a United States Supreme Court case testing the admissibility of confessions by multiple defendants accused of the same crime, and the rights of juries.

Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895), was an appellate case before the United States Supreme Court in 1895 which established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes in a landmark decision. F. A. Coffin and Percival B. Coffin, plaintiffs in error, and A. S. Reed had been charged with aiding and abetting the former president of the Indianapolis National Bank, Theodore P. Haughey, in misdemeanor bank fraud between January 1, 1891, and July 26, 1893. It is a complex case with a 50-count indictment.

Schillinger v. United States, 155 U.S. 163 (1894), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, holding (7–2, per Justice Brewer) that a suit for patent infringement cannot be entertained against the United States, because patent infringement is a tort and the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for intentional torts.

Reagan v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. was a United States Supreme Court legal case that was submitted to the court on March 23, 1893, took place in 1894, and is revered in the history of American constitutional law. The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the Railroad Commission Act of Texas, which established a commission with the power to regulate railroad rates and practices in the state. The case included the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, a financial institution that held bonds issued by the Houston and Texas Central Railroad Company, as the plaintiff and Texas railroad commissioners, John H. Reagan, W. P. McLean, and L. L. Foster, the attorney general of the state of Texas, C. A. Culberson, The International & Great Northern Railroad Company and Thomas N.

Wharton v. Wise, 153 U.S. 155 (1894), is a 9-to-0 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States, which denied a citizen of the state of Maryland a writ of habeas corpus. The appellant, tried and convicted of illegally harvesting oysters from Pocomoke Sound in the Chesapeake Bay, had argued that his right to fish was protected by an interstate compact and that this compact also barred the state of Virginia from trying him. The Supreme Court disagreed on both counts.

McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684 (1894), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the appellant, John McKane, had no federal constitutional right to an appeal. They held that state courts had the right to grant appellate review at their discretion.

Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court unanimously held that tomatoes should be classified as vegetables rather than fruits for purposes of tariffs, imports and customs. Justice Horace Gray delivered the opinion of the Court in holding that the Tariff Act of 1883 used the ordinary meaning of the words "fruit" and "vegetable", instead of the technical botanical meaning.

Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893), decided by the United States Supreme Court on May 15, 1893, was a case challenging provisions in Section 6 of the Geary Act of 1892 that extended and amended the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The provisions in question required Chinese in the United States to obtain certificates of residency and allowed for the arrest and the deportation of Chinese who had failed to obtain these certificates, even if they had not violated any other laws. The case involved writs of habeas corpus from Fong Yue Ting and two other Chinese citizens residing in New York City who were arrested and detained for not having certificates.

Pettibone v. United States, 148 U.S. 197 (1893), is a United States Supreme Court criminal case involving the knowledge requirement in an obstruction of justice case. It was the first Supreme Court case involving interpretation of obstruction of justice statutes (currently United States Code Section 1503). Chief Justice Fuller wrote, "a person is not sufficiently charged with obstructing or impeding the due administration of justice in a court unless it appears that he knew of or had notice that justice was being administered in such court".

Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893), was a suit brought before the Supreme Court of the United States that sought to settle two questions: What is the correct boundary between the two states and, if the boundary was inaccurately set, can the state ask the court to change it? Does an agreement setting the boundary between two states require approval of Congress under the Compact Clause of the United States Constitution? When two states have a controversy between each other, the case is filed for original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad Co., 147 U.S. 165 (1893), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court which held that the Secretary of the Interior violated the Due Process Clause when revoking a railroad corporation's right of way over public lands.

Kohn v. McNulta, 147 U.S. 238 (1893), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a person should not receive compensation for injuries sustained when he is experienced in his work and there is no evidence of negligence or extenuating circumstances.

Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U.S. 282 (1893), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the United States Constitution's Appointments Clause. The Court declared Congress may expand the duties of an existing office without rendering it necessary that the incumbent again be nominated, confirmed and appointed as long as the new duties are "germane" to those already held by the office.

Fleitas v. Richardson, 147 U.S. 550 (1893), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, under the Louisiana Code, a husband's liability to his wife for her separate property received by him under the marriage contract is considered a debt secured by a mortgage on his lands. This liability may be enforced by the wife through a direct suit against her husband. The Court also held that the liability may be extinguished by the husband's discharge in bankruptcy.

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892), was a United States Supreme Court case decided on October 17, 1892. The case concerned a law passed in Michigan which divided the state into separate congressional districts and awarded one of the state's electoral votes to the winner of each district. The suit was filed by several of these electors chosen in the 1892 election, including William McPherson, against Robert R. Blacker, the Secretary of State of Michigan. It was the first Supreme Court case to consider whether certain methods of states' appointments of their electors were constitutional. The Court, in a majority opinion authored by Chief Justice Melville Fuller, upheld Michigan's law, and more generally gave state legislatures plenary power over how they appointed their electors.

Cook v. Hart, 146 U.S. 183 (1892), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Extradition Clause allows a state to kidnap a fugitive residing in another state and forcibly return them to a state for a valid trial.

The Supreme Court decision in Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892), reaffirmed that each state in its sovereign capacity holds title to all submerged lands within its borders and holds these lands in public trust. This is a foundational case for the public trust doctrine. The Supreme Court held a four to three split decision that the State of Illinois did not possess the authority to grant fee title to submerged lands where doing so would preclude exercise of the public right to commercial navigation and fishing in navigable waters.

Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 (1892), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that created one of the most important rules of evidence in American and British courtrooms: an exception to the hearsay rule for statements regarding the intentions of the declarant. Decided in 1892, the Hillmon case was authored by Justice Horace Gray, and its holding has been codified in Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3), and adopted by many other jurisdictions.

United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892), is a decision issued on February 29, 1892 by the United States Supreme Court, discussing the constitutional definition of "a quorum to do business" in Congress. Justice David Brewer delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court, analyzing the constitutional limitations on the United States Senate and House of Representatives when determining their rules of proceedings. In particular, the Court held that it fell within the powers of the House and Senate to establish their own rules for verifying whether a majority of their members is present, as required for a quorum under Article I of the Constitution.

Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U.S. 47 (1892), was a United States Supreme Court case. Occurring at the beginning of the era of Chinese Exclusion as well as the formation of the United States courts of appeals, the case set precedents for the interpretation of the rights of Chinese merchants as well as the jurisdiction of the new courts. The ruling relied heavily on the Burlingame Treaty of 1868, the Angell Treaty of 1880, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the amendments to the Act in 1884, as well as the Evarts Act of 1891. The case helped to establish not only the rights of the Chinese merchant class, but also informed future cases about the power of the Circuit Court of Appeals as well as the perception of Chinese immigrants.

Pope Manufacturing Co. v. Gormully, 144 U.S. 224 (1892), was an early United States Supreme Court decision refusing, on public policy grounds, to enforce an agreement not to contest patent validity. The Supreme Court later relied on Pope in Lear, Inc. v. Adkins as authority in support of overruling the doctrine of licensee estoppel. That doctrine had prohibited patent licensees from challenging the validity of patents under which they had been licensed.

Belford v. Scribner, 144 U.S. 488 (1892), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 1) A copyright is held by default with the person whose name it was taken out in, regardless of potential conflicts with state law. 2) If a work contains a mixture of original and copyright infringing material, but it is so intermingled as to be inseparable, then the copyright holder may take all profits from the work.

Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135 (1892), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that James E. Boyd is a United States citizen.

The Barbed Wire Patent Case, 143 U.S. 275 was a significant patent dispute in 1892 between plaintiff Joseph Glidden and the USPTO regarding the right of barbed wire. Lucian Smith was the original inventor in 1867 and held patent rights for it, while Glidden made changes to the production of barbed wire, holding the barbs in place, in 1874 that he believed were novel enough to merit a new invention and thus new patent.