United States Reports
606 volumes · 104,521 opinions
4,420 opinions in United States Reports with a Wikipedia-sourced synopsis — the cases notable enough that someone wrote an encyclopedia article about them.
- Gumbel v. Pitkin (1885)113 U.S. 545
Gumbel v. Pitkin, 113 U.S. 545 (1885), was a case brought in error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana to dismiss a writ of error.
- Fussell v. Gregg (1885)113 U.S. 550
Fussell v. Gregg, 113 U.S. 550 (1885), was an appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio regarding a bill in equity filed November 20, 1879, to establish the title of the plaintiff to, and recover the possession of, a certain tract of land in the County of Logan, in the State of Ohio, and for an account of rents and profits. The dispute was one of many issues with land titles in the former Virginia Military District section of Ohio.
- St. Louis v. Myers (1885)113 U.S. 566
St. Louis v. Myers, 113 U.S. 566 (1885), was a motion to dismiss for want of a federal question to give jurisdiction regarding Acts that admitted Missouri into the Union while leaving the rights of riparian owners on the Mississippi River to be settled according to the principles of state law and relinquishing to the City of St. Louis the rights of the United States in wharves and thoroughfares, which did not authorize the city to impair the rights of other riparian proprietors by extending streets into the river. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the Court. The question on which this case turned below was whether Myers, the lessee of the property situated on the bank of the Mississippi River, within the City of St.
- Brown v. United States (1885)113 U.S. 568
Brown v. United States, 113 U.S. 568 (1885), was an appeal from the Court of Claims regarding one James Brown, the intestate of the appellant, who was a boatswain in the United States Navy. The petition in this case was filed against the United States by the administratrix of his estate in the Court of Claims to recover a balance of pay which she alleged was due to Brown at his death. The Court of Claims found the following facts: The decedent Brown, was appointed a boatswain in the US Navy, January 4, 1862. On October 22, 1872, the Naval Retiring Board, before which he had been ordered by the Secretary of the Navy under the provisions of § 23 of the Act of August 3, 1861, 12 Stat.
- Chicago Life Ins Co v. Needles (1885)113 U.S. 574
Chicago Life Insurance Co. v. Needles, 113 U.S. 574 (1885), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court. It involved the writ of error regarding a denial of a motion and final judgment rendered perpetually enjoining Chicago Life Ins. Co. from further prosecution of its business. From that judgment, a writ of error was prosecuted to the supreme court of the state, where, among other things, was assigned for error the refusal of the court of original jurisdiction to adjudge that the said statutes of Illinois were in violation of the Constitution of the United States. The judgment of the inferior court was in all things affirmed by the supreme court of the state, and from that judgment of affirmance the present writ of error is prosecuted.
- Pearce v. Ham (1885)113 U.S. 585
Pearce v. Ham, 113 U.S. 585 (1885), was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois regarding a bill filed by Charles I. Ham, the appellee, against Isaac N. Pearce and Andrew J. Kuykendall, the appellants. Originally, one Joseph K. Frick contracted with the County Court of Johnson County in the State of Illinois, where he agreed to build, according to certain plans and specifications, a courthouse for said county at Vienna, the county seat, furnishing the material and completing it by the first Monday of September 1870, in consideration whereof the county court agreed to pay him $38,357 in the bonds of Johnson county, bearing ten percent interest, and due in six years.
- Ayers v. Watson (1885)113 U.S. 594
Ayers v. Watson, 113 U.S. 594 (1885), was an action of trespass to try title of certain land in Bell County, Texas, originally brought in the district court of that county by Watson, the defendant in error, against the plaintiffs in error and one Anderson.
- California Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor (1885)113 U.S. 609
California Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor, 113 U.S. 609 (1885), involved a bill that was filed by the appellant against the appellee complaining that the latter was infringing on a letters patent granted to one John J. Schillinger, and which had been assigned for the State of California to the complainant. The patent was for an improvement in concrete pavement was originally issued July 19, 1870, and reissued May 2, 1871. The improvement, as described in the reissued patent, consisted in laying the pavement in detached blocks separated from each other by strips of tar paper or other suitable material so as to prevent the blocks from adhering to each other.
- Winona St v. Barney (1885)113 U.S. 618
Winona & St. Peter R. Co. v. Barney, 113 U.S. 618 (1885), was a case in brought to the United States Supreme Court involving public land grants to a state to aid in constructing railroads which contained a description which would be difficult to give full effect if used in an instrument of private conveyance.
- Kansas Pacific Railway Co. v. Dunmeyer (1885)113 U.S. 629
Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. Dunmeyer, 113 U.S. 629 (1885), was a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Kansas. The action was brought in that court on a covenant of warranty of title to two pieces of land in a deed of conveyance made by the Kansas Pacific Railroad Company to Dunmeyer. The Pacific Railroad Acts generally allowed railroads to sell public land adjacent to their routes as part of a land grant to raise funds but made an exception for land that already had a homestead filed. G. B. Dunmeyer claimed he purchased land that already had an existing claim.
- Schmieder v. Barney (1885)113 U.S. 645
Schmieder v. Barney, 113 U.S. 645 (1885), regards the act of July 14, 1862, § 9, 12 Stat. 553, which imposes a duty, "On all delaines . . . and on all goods of similar description, not exceeding in value forty cents per square yard, two cents per square yard." Held that the similarity required is a similarity in product, in adaptation to uses, and in uses, even though in commerce they may be classed as different articles; affirming Greenleaf v. Goodrich.
- Camp v. United States (1885)113 U.S. 648
Camp v. United States, 113 U.S. 648 (1885), was an action brought by the appellant on April 13, 1869, to recover a balance alleged to be due as compensation for collecting and delivering to the United States a large amount of cotton in bales which was captured and abandoned property within the meaning of the acts of Congress. He claimed to have performed the services in question under an arrangement or agreement with an agent of the US Treasury Department which the Secretary of the Treasury subsequently recognized as a valid contract with the government. He admits certain payments on his claim, and asks judgment for the further sum of $80,000. The court below dismissed his petition.
- Parsons v. Wilkinson (1885)113 U.S. 656
Maxwell's Executors v. Wilkinson, 113 U.S. 656 (1885), was a writ of error brought by the executors of a former collector of the port of New York to reverse a judgment in an action brought against him by the defendant in error to recover duties paid by them on imported iron.
- Flagg v. Walker (1885)113 U.S. 659
Flagg v. Walker, 113 U.S. 659 (1885), regards a case where the deeds for several parcels of land were transferred from Flagg, who was in financial difficulty, to Walker in return for paying off Flagg's debts and profits from the sale against a mortgage for other property owned by Flagg.
- Blake v. City and County of San Francisco (1885)113 U.S. 679
Blake v. City and County of San Francisco, 113 U.S. 679 (1885), was an appeal from a decree that dismissed a bill filed by the appellant to restrain the infringement by the appellees of reissued letters patent granted to the appellant as the assignee of original letters patent issued to Thomas H. Bailey. The original patent was dated February 9, 1864, and the reissue September 18, 1877. They were for "a new and improved valve for water cylinders of steam fire engines and other pump cylinders." The specification, which was substantially the same in both patents, stated that previous to the invention therein described, the only valve used to relieve the pressure upon fire hose to prevent them from bursting was one operated by hand.
- Boyer v. Boyer (1885)113 U.S. 689
Boyer v. Boyer, 113 U.S. 689 (1885), was a suit in error brought in a state court of Pennsylvania for an injunction restraining the commissioners of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania from levying a county tax for the year 1883 upon certain shares in the Pennsylvania National Bank, an association organized under the National Banking Act. The suit proceeds upon the ground that such levy violates the act of Congress prescribing conditions upon state taxation of national bank shares in this, that "other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens" of that county is exempted by the laws of Pennsylvania from such taxation. A demurrer to the bill was sustained and the suit was dismissed.
- Soon Hing v. Crowley (1885)113 U.S. 703
Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703 (1885), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.
- United States v. Indianapolis St L R (1885)113 U.S. 711
United States v. Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co., 113 U.S. 711 (1885), regarded a suit that was brought to foreclose mortgages given to secure bonds issued by the Indianapolis and St. Louis Railroad Company. A final decree of foreclosure having been passed, the mortgaged property was sold, and the sale was confirmed by the court. The United States intervened by petition, and asked that certain sums, alleged to be due to the government on account of taxes, be first paid out of the proceeds.
- Fisk (1885)113 U.S. 713
Ex parte Fisk, 113 U.S. 713 (1885), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Federal rules of evidence control in actions at law in federal court, and they preempt state laws that allow discovery in analogous situations. Essentially, Francis B. Fogg brought suit in the New York trial court against Fisk to recover the sum of $63,250 on the allegation of false and fraudulent representations made by Fisk in the sale of certain mining stocks. The case was removed to federal court, and the state court ordered that the proceedings continue there under the rules of the state court. Fisk was held in criminal contempt when he declined to answer questions his attorney believed violated the Fifth Amendment.
- Cooper Manuf'G Co of Mount Vernon Ohio v. Ferguson (1885)113 U.S. 727
Cooper Manufacturing Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U.S. 727 (1885), was a suit regarding the legitimacy of a sale of a steam engine and other machinery in the State of Ohio.
- Carter v. Burr (1885)113 U.S. 737
Carter v. Burr, 113 U.S. 737 (1885), was a case regarding a promissory note that was held by the appellee which secured by mortgage of premises in the City of Washington, DC to the appellant, to decide whether other transactions regarding the property would pay this note, or if it would instead remain in force, along with the right to participate in the proceeds arising from a sale under the mortgage.
- Gregory v. Hartley (1885)113 U.S. 742
Gregory v. Hartley, 113 U.S. 742 (1885), was a case in error to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska where it was decided and reaffirmed that the words "term at which said cause could be first tried and before the trial thereof," Act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, § 3, 18 Stat. 471, mean the first term at which the cause is in law triable, i.e., in which it would stand for trial if the parties had taken the usual steps as to pleadings and other preparations. Babbitt v. Clark, 103 U.S. 808, and Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Speck, ante, 113 U.S. 87.
- United States v. Steever (1885)113 U.S. 747
United States v. Steever, 113 U.S. 747 (1885), was an appeal from the court of claims to recover the amount necessary to make up his lawful share of the prize money awarded for the capture of the Confederate naval ram Albemarle. The rebel iron-clad ram CSS Albemarle was captured and sunk at Plymouth, in the Roanoke River, in the State of North Carolina, on the night of October 27, 1864, by the United States Picket Launch No. 1, an armed torpedo launch propelled by steam, attached to a division of the North Atlantic blockading squadron, and commanded by Lieut. William B. Cushing, of the United States navy, and having on board six inferior officers (of whom the petitioner, a third assistant engineer, was one) and eight men. Lieut.
- Hardin v. Boyd (1885)113 U.S. 756
Hardin v. Boyd, 113 U.S. 756 (1885), was a motion to dismiss a lawsuit on county bonds issued in aid of a railroad. Judgment below for the plaintiff. The defendant brought a writ of error to reverse it. Subsequently, to the judgment, the county settled with the plaintiff and other bondholders, by giving them new bonds bearing a less rate of interest, and the old bonds, which were the cause of action in this suit, were surrendered and destroyed. Fraud and collusion was alleged in the handling of a will which transferred ownership of property in Crittenden County, Arkansas. These facts were brought before this Court by affidavits and transcripts from the county records, accompanied by a motion to dismiss the writ of error.
- Elk v. Wilkins (1884)112 U.S. 94
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that Native Americans born on Indian reservations were not entitled to birthright citizenship under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. John Elk, a Winnebago Native American, was born on an Indian reservation within the territorial bounds of United States. He later resided off-reservation in Omaha, Nebraska, where he renounced his former tribal allegiance and claimed birthright citizenship by virtue of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Edye v. Robertson (1884)112 U.S. 580
The Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580 (1884), also referred to as Edye v. Robertson, were a group of cases decided together by the United States Supreme Court.
- Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony (1884)111 U.S. 53
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld the power of Congress to extend copyright protection to photography.
- New England Mutual Life Insurance v. Woodworth (1884)111 U.S. 138
New England Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Woodworth, 111 U.S. 138 (1884), was a U.S. Supreme Court case.
- Ames v. State of Kansas Johnston Kansas Pac Ry Co (1884)111 U.S. 449
Ames v. Kansas ex rel. Johnston, 111 U.S. 449 (1884), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Congress may grant inferior courts concurrent jurisdiction over issues where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction as long as the issue is not required by the Constitution to be filed directly in the Supreme Court.
- Schreiber v. Sharpless (1884)110 U.S. 76
Schreiber v. Sharpless, 110 U.S. 76 (1884), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held charges of copyright infringement do not survive the death of the accused and may not be transferred to the executors of their will.
- Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton (1884)110 U.S. 108
Kellogg Bridge Company v. Hamilton, 110 U.S. 108 (1884), was an Implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose lawsuit which took place in 1884.
- Juilliard v. Greenman (1884)110 U.S. 421
Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which issuance of greenbacks as legal tender in peacetime was challenged. The Legal Tender Acts of 1862 and 1863 were upheld.
- Hurtado v. People of the State of California (1884)110 U.S. 516
Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884), was a landmark case decided by the United States Supreme Court that allowed state governments, as distinguished from the federal government, to avoid using grand juries in criminal prosecutions.
- 'The Ku-Klux Cases' Yarbrough (1884)110 U.S. 651
Ex parte Yarbrough (also known as the Ku Klux Cases), 110 U.S. 651 (1884), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving Congress's power to punish individuals who interfere with the right to vote in federal elections. The Court sustained the convictions of Jasper Yarbrough and seven others, who had been found guilty of beating and injuring an African-American man to prevent him from voting. The decision marked one of the few times that the post-Reconstruction Court upheld Congress's ability to protect civil rights.
- Civil Rights Cases (1883)Overruled (1968)109 U.S. 3
The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), were a group of five landmark cases in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments did not empower Congress to outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals. The holding that the Thirteenth Amendment did not empower the federal government to punish racist acts done by private citizens would be overturned by the Supreme Court in the 1968 case Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. The Fourteenth Amendment not applying to private entities, however, is still valid precedent to this day. Although the Fourteenth Amendment-related decision has never been overturned, in the 1964 case of Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v.
Overruled by Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968) - United States v. Jones (1883)109 U.S. 513
United States v. Jones, 109 U.S. 513 (1883), is an important decision by the United States Supreme Court which provides the power to take private property for public uses, in the exercise of the right of eminent domain, to the government of the United States. However, once the government exercises of the right of eminent domain and after a fair determination of the amount of compensation, any unforeseen damage to the property as a result of activities prior to the purchase but realized only afterwards is to be compensated by the government per any legislative decree.
- Kan-Gi-Shun-Ca (1883)109 U.S. 556
Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that followed the death of one member of a Native American tribe at the hands of another on reservation land. Crow Dog was a member of the Brulé band of the Lakota Sioux. On August 5, 1881 he shot and killed Spotted Tail, a Lakota chief; there are different accounts of the background to the killing. The tribal council dealt with the incident according to Sioux tradition, and Crow Dog paid restitution to the dead man's family. However, the U.S. authorities then prosecuted Crow Dog for murder in a federal court. He was found guilty and sentenced to hang.
- United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whisky (1883)108 U.S. 491
United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey, 108 U.S. 491 (1883), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Congress has the power to regulate the possession and sale of liquor in the lands of and near Native American tribes and upheld an order to seize barrels containing forty-three gallons of whiskey that were being traded on Native American land.
- Atlantio Works v. Brady Brady (1882)107 U.S. 192
Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U.S. 192 (1883), is a patent infringement decision of the United States Supreme Court, noted for this criticism of allowing patents on trivial inventions that encourage speculators: The design of the patent laws is to reward those who make some substantial discovery or invention which adds to our knowledge and makes a step in advance in the useful arts. Such inventors are worthy of all favor. It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea. . . . Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention.
- United States v. Lee (1882)106 U.S. 196
United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882), is a 5-to-4 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Constitution's prohibition on lawsuits against the federal government did not extend to officers of the government themselves. The case involved the heir of Mary Anna Custis Lee, wife of Confederate States of America General Robert E. Lee, who sued to regain control of Arlington House and its grounds. Arlington had been seized by the United States government in 1861 and eventually converted into Arlington National Cemetery. The estate had been sold to pay outstanding taxes, but the lawsuit contested the tax sale as improper. A jury found in favor of the Lees. The Supreme Court, too, concluded that the tax sale was illegal.
- Ex parte Curtis (1882)106 U.S. 371
Ex parte Curtis, 106 U.S. 371 (1882), is an 8–1 ruling by the United States Supreme Court that the Act of August 15, 1876 was a constitutional exercise of the enumerated powers of the United States Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. The petitioner had been convicted of receiving money for political purposes in violation of the Act. The petitioner asked the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus.
- Pace v. State of Alabama (1882)Overruled (1964)106 U.S. 583
Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed that Alabama's anti-miscegenation statute was constitutional based on an argument that the punishment for violating the law against miscegenation applied the same without regard to race. This logic was clearly rejected by the Supreme Court in 1964 in McLaughlin v. Florida and in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. Pace v. Alabama is one of the oldest court cases in America pertaining to interracial sex.
Overruled by McLaughlin v. Florida (1964) - United States v. Harris (1882)Held federal statute unconstitutional106 U.S. 629
United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883), was a case in which the US Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to penalize crimes such as assault and murder in most circumstances. The Court declared that only state governments have the power to penalize those crimes. In the specific case, four men were removed from a Crockett County, Tennessee, jail by a group led by Sheriff R. G. Harris and 19 others. The four men were beaten, and one was killed. A deputy sheriff tried to prevent the act but failed. Section 2 of the Force Act of 1871 was declared unconstitutional on the theory that an act to enforce the Equal Protection Clause applied only to state actions, not individuals' actions.
- Egbert v. Lippmann (1881)104 U.S. 333
Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333 (1881), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that public use of an invention bars the patenting of it. The Court's ruling was colored by its view that the inventor had forfeited his right to patent the invention by "sleeping on his rights" while others commercialized the technology.
- Merrell v. Tice (1881)104 U.S. 557
Merrell v. Tice, 104 U.S. 557 (1881), was a United States Supreme Court ruling dealing with copyright. At the time, a prerequisite for having a copyright was delivering two copies of the material to the Library of Congress within a time limit. Tice sued Merrell for copyright infringement and the lower courts were sympathetic; he just had to prove that he had observed that prerequisite. As evidence, Tice presented notes purportedly from the Library of Congress that certified that he had sent the book to the Library on time. Appeals of the case eventually landed it in the Supreme Court. The Court determined that the letter was an example of what he would need, but was not sufficient to prove his case.
- United States v. McBratney (1881)104 U.S. 621
United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621 (1881), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that upon the admission of Colorado as a state, there being no reservation to the United States of jurisdiction over the Indian territory within the state limits, that the United States circuit court for the district of Colorado had no jurisdiction over the murder of one white man by another in the Ute reservation in said state.
- Kilbourn v. Thompson (1880)Held federal statute unconstitutional103 U.S. 168
Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the question whether or not the United States House of Representatives may compel testimony. Hallet Kilbourn was subpoenaed to testify before a Special Committee established by the House of Representatives to investigate the bankruptcy of Jay Cooke & Company. Though he appeared, he refused to answer any questions and did not tender requested documents. John G. Thompson, Sergeant-At-Arms for the House, took Kilbourn into custody. Kilbourn continued to refuse to testify and provided no explanation for his refusal. The House resolved that Kilbourn was in contempt and should be held in custody until he agreed to testify and produce the requested documents.
- Blake v. United States (1880)103 U.S. 227
Blake v. United States, 103 U.S. 227 (1880), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the removal power under the Appointments Clause. Justice John Marshall Harlan delivered the opinion of the Court: If the power of the President and Senate, in this regard, could be constitutionally subjected to restrictions by statute (as to which we express no opinion), it is sufficient for the present case to say that Congress did not intend by that section to impose them. After Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, his Vice-President Andrew Johnson became President. The new president was openly hostile to Congress' Reconstruction policies, and Congress responded by imposing substantial restrictions on the President's removal power, including the controversial Tenure of Office Act.
- Neal v. Delaware (1880)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional103 U.S. 370
Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370 (1881), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Fifteenth Amendment invalidated provisions of state constitutions limiting suffrage to whites, and other privileges restricted to voters cannot be restricted based on race.
- Thompson v. United States (1880)103 U.S. 480
Thompson v. United States is the name of several United States Supreme Court cases: Thompson v. United States, 604 U.S. ___ (2025): A statute that prohibits knowingly making a false statement to influence the FDIC’s action on a loan does not criminalize statements that are misleading but not false. Thompson v. United States, 103 U.S. 480 (1881) Thompson v. United States, 142 U.S. 471 (1892) Thompson v. United States, 155 U.S. 271 (1894) Thompson v. United States, 246 U.S. 547 (1918) Thompson v. United States, 343 U.S. 549 (1952) Thompson v. United States, 400 U.S. 17 (1970) Thompson v. United States, 444 U.S. 248 (1980)