United States Reports

Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the federal income tax imposed under the Revenue Act of 1864.

Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879), is a leading Supreme Court of the United States copyright case cited to explain the idea-expression dichotomy. The court held that a book did not give an author the right to exclude others from practicing what was described in the book, only right to exclude reproduction of the material in the book. Exclusive rights to a "useful art" described in a book was only available by patent.

The Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879), were a set of three cases consolidated into a single appeal before the United States Supreme Court, which in 1879 unanimously ruled that the Copyright Clause of the Constitution gave Congress no power to protect or regulate trademarks. Congress then passed the Trade Mark Act of 1881, which was based on the Commerce Clause power, and therefore passed constitutional muster.

Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States about racial discrimination and United States constitutional criminal procedure. Strauder was the first instance where the Supreme Court reversed a state court decision denying a defendant's motion to remove his criminal trial to federal court pursuant to Section 3 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Its holding, along with those of its companion cases of Virginia v. Rives (1880) and Ex parte Virginia (1880) established the proposition that it is a denial to criminal defendants of the equal protection of the law for a state to exclude persons from service on a grand or petit jury on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 303 (1880), was a United States Supreme Court case about race discrimination in jury selection. Two black teenagers accused of murdering a white man in Patrick County, Virginia in autumn 1878 were convicted by an all-white jury. Their defense attorneys accused local officials of systematically excluding blacks from the jury pool in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Court unanimously ruled that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th prohibited facially discriminatory laws and intentional discrimination but did not guarantee a mixed-race jury. Rives has not been formally overturned but is no longer considered "good law" because it is effectively superseded by more recent cases.

Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the separation of powers and the Appointments Clause.

Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U.S. 491 (1879), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state may tax a debt held by a resident upon a resident of another State. That is, the situs of the debt is with the creditor, not the debtor. This ignores the possibility of multiple taxation.

Nagle v. Rutledge, 100 U.S. 675 (1880), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the amount in controversy in an appeal is determined by the actual amount disputed in the issues on appeal, not the total amount sought by the parties in the proceeding below.

Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1879), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah in stating that execution by firing squad, as prescribed by the Utah territorial statute, was not cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508 (1879), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning who qualifies as an “Officer of the United States” for purposes of the Appointments Clause and a federal criminal statute prohibiting extortion by federal "officers". The Court held that a civil surgeon appointed by the Commissioner of Pensions to examine pensioners was not an “officer of the United States,” and the Commissioner of Pensions was not the “head of a department” within the meaning of the clause.

Perris v. Hexamer, 99 U.S. 674 (1879), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a map-maker has no more an exclusive right to use the form of the characters they employ to express their ideas on a map than they have to use the typeface they use for text. Suitably, one could not use copyright to restrict the use of map symbols.

United States v. Throckmorton (98 U.S. 61) is an 1878 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on civil procedure, specifically res judicata, in cases heard at equity. A unanimous Court affirmed an appeal of a decision by the District Court for California upholding a Mexican-era land claim, holding that collateral estoppel bars untimely motions to set aside the verdict where the purportedly fraudulent evidence has already been considered and a decision reached. In the opinion it distinguished between that kind of fraud, which it called intrinsic, and extrinsic fraud, in which deceptive actions exterior to the proceeding prevented a party, or potential party, to the action from becoming aware of the possibility they could vindicate their rights in court.

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), was a Supreme Court of the United States case which held that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment. Reynolds was the first Supreme Court opinion to address the First Amendment's protection of religious liberties, impartial juries and the Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment. George Reynolds was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), charged with bigamy under the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act after marrying Amelia Jane Schofield while still married to Mary Ann Tuddenham in Utah Territory. He was secretary to Brigham Young and presented himself as a test of the federal government's attempt to outlaw polygamy. An earlier conviction was overturned on technical grounds.

Mimmack v. United States, 97 U.S. 426 (1878), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the Appointments Clause.

City of Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Co., 97 U.S. 126 (1878), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that while the public use of an invention more than one year prior to the inventor's application for a patent normally causes the inventor to lose his right to a patent, there is an exception to this rule for public uses for experimental purposes.

Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97 (1878), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Louisiana statute that provided for special assessments against property for drainage purposes.

Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 (1878), was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision. The case decided that the United States Post Office may open and inspect mail to limit the transmission of circulars on lotteries. It also extended Fourth Amendment protections to private letters, holding that letters and sealed packages sent through the mail required warrants to be searched through.

Hall v. Decuir, 95 U.S. 485 (1878), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. In Hall, Josephine Decuir, a wealthy woman designated a Creole, sued for racial discrimination she experienced on a steamboat. She was traveling from New Orleans to Pointe Coupee Parish, where she owned a sugar plantation. The Supreme Court held that the Louisiana statute authorizing a damages award to Decuir unconstitutionally interfered with interstate commerce. The majority opinion, by Morrison Waite, sought to avoid conflicting state laws with regard to interstate transit. Joseph W. Singer argues that Hall marked the beginning of a phase in Supreme Court jurisprudence that led to Plessy v. Ferguson.

Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that a state court can only exert personal jurisdiction over a party domiciled out-of-state if that party is served with process while physically present within the state. More importantly, the court imposed a procedural limit on quasi in rem jurisdiction over property located within the state; it would have to be "brought under the control of the court" at the time the suit commenced otherwise quasi in rem jurisdiction would remain unavailable. The case emerged from a fee dispute between Marcus Neff, a homesteader in the Territory of Oregon, and attorney John H. Mitchell.

Mobile Life Insurance Company v. Brame, 95 U.S. 754 (1877), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the remedies available under the Louisiana code for manslaughter were not available under the common law.

Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the power of state governments to regulate private industries that affect "the common good."

United States v. Young, 94 U.S. 258 (1877), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that when courts grant a new trial, it vacates the prior judgement, such that higher courts cannot hear appeals of the initial trial and must wait until the new trial completes in the lower court.

Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780 (1876), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a process transforming grain meal into purified flour was patentable. This decision provided significant guidance on the patentability of processes and helped to shape the understanding of what constitutes a patentable invention in the United States. In this case, the plaintiff, Cochrane, alleged that Deener infringed on his patented process for manufacturing purified flour. Deener argued that the patent was invalid because the process was not a patentable subject matter. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court, which was tasked with determining whether the process in question was eligible for patent protection.

Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U.S. 259 (1876), was decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the court held that New York's imposition of a tax per passenger arriving by ship was an invalid state regulation of foreign commerce.

Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105 (1876), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled on judicial jurisdiction in espionage cases. The case was an important precursor to the court's 1953 decision in United States v. Reynolds wherein it recognized the State Secrets Privilege. The case was later referenced and its holding expanded by the Court in the 2005 case of Tenet v. Doe and then again in General Dynamics Corp. v. United States. In Tenet, which involved a contract claim against the CIA brought by Cold War era spies, Court clarified that “Totten precludes judicial review in cases . . .

Phillips v. Payne, 92 U.S. 105 (1875), was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that since 1847, pursuant to the act of Congress of the preceding year, the State of Virginia has been in de facto possession of the County of Alexandria, which, prior thereto, formed a part of the District of Columbia. The political department of its government has, since then, uniformly asserted and the head of its judicial department expressly affirmed its title. Congress has, by more than one act, recognized the transfer as a settled fact. A resident of the county in a suit to recover the amount by him paid under protest for taxes upon his property there situate is therefore estopped from raising the question as to the validity of the retrocession.

United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1876), was a voting rights case in which the United States Supreme Court narrowly construed the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as not supporting the Enforcement Act of 1870 prohibition of all state voting restrictions.

Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1876), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the U.S. federal government has the power to set rules surrounding immigration and to manage foreign relations, not the states. The case has been cited in other Supreme Court cases related to government authority on matters relating to immigration policy and immigration enforcement, most recently in Arizona v. United States (2012).

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, ruling that the U.S. Bill of Rights did not limit the power of private actors or state governments despite the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. It reversed the federal criminal convictions for the civil rights violations committed in aid of anti-Reconstruction murders. Decided during the Reconstruction Era, the case represented a major defeat for federal efforts to protect the civil rights of African Americans. The case developed from the strongly contested 1872 Louisiana gubernatorial election and the subsequent Colfax massacre, in which dozens of black people and three white people were killed. Federal charges were brought against several whites, led by William J.

Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367 (1875), was a court case that took place in the Supreme Court of the United States. It invoked the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is related to the issue of eminent domain.

Murdock v. City of Memphis, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 590 (1875), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. William Tod Otto argued the case on behalf of the City of Memphis. Because the case was both argued originally and reargued before the appointment of Chief Justice Waite, he took no part in the judgment. Murdock challenged on several grounds a state court's decision relating to land devised by Murdock's ancestors. The city's federal claim which was outcome determinative was that a federal statute created a trust for the land. The state court accepted this claim and the Supreme Court affirmed. Murdock, however, urged the Supreme Court to review the state court's findings on state law based on the Judiciary Act of 1867.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that citizenship does not confer a right to vote, and therefore state laws barring women from voting are constitutionally valid. The Supreme Court upheld state court decisions in Missouri, which had refused to register a woman as a lawful voter because that state's laws allowed only men to vote. The Minor v. Happersett ruling was based on an interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court readily accepted that Minor was a citizen of the United States, but it held that the constitutionally protected privileges of citizenship did not include the right to vote.

Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 498 (1874), is an 1874 decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the patent eligibility of abstract ideas. As explained below in the Subsequent developments section, it is intermediate in the development of that aspect of patent law from Neilson v Harford, through O'Reilly v. Morse, to Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., and then to Parker v. Flook, Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l. The Rubber-Tip Pencil case has frequently been cited in the subsequent Supreme Court decisions concerning the patent eligibility of computer-related claimed inventions, such as Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, Diamond v. Diehr, Parker v. Flook, and Gottschalk v. Benson,

United States v. Cook, 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 591 (1873), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Indian tribes do not own the land their reservations are on, the land is owned by the United States and the Indians only have a right to occupy the land. They may not cut and sell timber merely for the purpose of selling timber, they may only sell timber that was cut incidental to another purpose. The government has a right to take action to recover damages for timber sold illegally from that land.

Davenport v. Dows, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 626 (1873), is a US corporate law case concerning the derivative suits in Delaware.

Adams v. Burke, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 453 (1873), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court first elaborated on the exhaustion doctrine. According to that doctrine, a so-called authorized sale of a patented product (one made by the patentee or a person authorized by it to sell the product) liberates the product from the patent monopoly. The product becomes the complete property of the purchaser and "passes without the monopoly." The property owner is then free to use or dispose of it as it may choose, free of any control by the patentee. Adams is a widely cited, leading case. A substantially identical doctrine applies in copyright law and is known as the "first sale doctrine". As the Supreme Court recently explained, in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S. Ct.

Sioux City & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Stout, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 657 (1873), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that first enunciated the idea that a landowner could be liable for the injuries of a child trespasser.

The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that ruled that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only protects the legal rights that are associated with federal U.S. citizenship, not those that pertain to state citizenship. Though the decision in the Slaughter-House Cases minimized the impact of the Privileges or Immunities Clause on state law, the Supreme Court would later incorporate the Bill of Rights through substantive due process. Ostensibly seeking to improve sanitary conditions, the Louisiana legislature and the city of New Orleans had established a corporation charged with regulating the slaughterhouse industry.

Bradwell v. State of Illinois, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 130 (1873), was a United States Supreme Court case which ruled that women were not granted the right to practice a profession under the United States Constitution. The case was brought to the court by Myra Bradwell, who sought to be admitted to the bar to practice law in Illinois. The Court ruled that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not include the right to practice a profession as a woman. This court case was a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to sex discrimination in the United States, and it no longer reflects current legal standards as current Title VII Laws restrict employment discrimination based on gender.

Carlisle v. United States, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 147 (1872), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, "The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence." The case has been cited in articles discussing the "culture defense" in criminal law.

Taylor v. Taintor, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 366 (1872), was a United States Supreme Court case. It is commonly credited as having decided that a person to whom a suspect is remanded, such as a bail bondsman, has sweeping rights to recover the suspect.

Reading Railroad Co. v. Pennsylvania, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 232 (1872), often known as the State Freight Tax Case, is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled that the state of Pennsylvania violated the U.S. Constitution by imposing unjust taxes on interstate commerce. The case was brought by Reading Railroad Co., which challenged Pennsylvania's Act of August 25, 1864, also referred to as 'An act to provide additional revenue for the use of the Commonwealth'. The act was established to provide additional revenue for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania after the American Civil War. It imposed systematic taxes on transportation companies, based on freight weight, for municipal purposes. All freight transported within Pennsylvania was subject to this tax. Reading Railroad Co.

Cross v. United States, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 479 (1871), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the principle of res judicata did not apply to Congressional reference cases. This was because Congress' intent in referring the case to the Court of Claims was to waive the defense of time bar for the entire controversy and that such intent could not be interpreted narrowly to prevent full recovery.

Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 511 (1872), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held it is not essential to identity of design that the appearance should be the same to the eye of an expert. If, to an ordinary observer, the resemblance is sufficiently deceptive as to induce him to purchase one, supposing it to be the other, then the one first patented is infringed by the other.

United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1871), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case stemming from the American Civil War (1861–1865) where Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase held that a Congressional statute "impairing the effect of a pardon, and thus infringing the constitutional power of the Executive" was unconstitutional.

The Pennsylvania College Cases, also known as Trustees of Jefferson College in Canonsburg v. Washington and Jefferson College, was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1871. Justice Nathan Clifford wrote the opinion, ruling in favor of Washington & Jefferson College. In 1865, two colleges in Washington County, Pennsylvania, Jefferson College in Canonsburg and Washington College in Washington merged to form Washington & Jefferson College, which maintained two campuses, one in each of the towns. That arrangement failed, and in 1869, the trustees voted to consolidate the two campuses in Washington. Shortly thereafter, a number of Canonsburg residents and dissident trustees of Jefferson College sued, claiming that the consolidation was unconstitutional.

This is an incomplete list of Supreme Court of the United States cases in the area of trademark law.

Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 397 (1872), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a State judge has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus, or to continue proceedings under the writ when issued, for the discharge of a person held by the authority, or claim and color of the authority, of the United States by an officer of that government.

Clinton v. Englebrecht, 80 U.S. 434 (1872), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a federal tribunal that is not organized under Article III cannot use statutes referring to Article III courts to call a jury and cannot call a jury at all unless its operating statute grants that power to it. The tribunal in this case was an Article IV tribunal called a territorial court.

Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581 (1872), is a United States Supreme Court case that upheld a Kentucky law prohibiting African Americans from testifying against white defendants.