United States Reports

Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1 (1849), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the political question doctrine in controversies arising under the Guarantee Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution (Art. IV, § 4).

Smith v. Turner and Norris v. Boston, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 283 (1849), were two similar cases, argued together before the United States Supreme Court, which decided 5–4 that it is unconstitutional for states to impose a tax based on the number of incoming immigrants on board or disembarking from a ship. The cases are also known as the Passenger Case or the Passenger Cases.

State of Missouri v. State of Iowa, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 660 (1849), is a 9-to-0 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the Sullivan Line of 1816 was the accepted boundary between the states of Iowa and Missouri. The ruling resolved a long-standing border dispute between the two states, which had nearly erupted in military clashes during the so-called "Honey War" of 1839.

Backus v. Gould, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 798 (1849), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Copyright Act of 1831 requires courts to award damages from copyright infringement based on the number of copies found in the accused's possession, not the number of infringing copies that they ever printed. At the time, at least in the case of books, a "copy" was defined as a complete reprinting or transcription of the work.

Jones v. Van Zandt, 46 U.S. (5 How.) 215 (1847), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision involving the constitutionality of slavery that was a predecessor of Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Supreme Court was then led by Chief Justice Roger Taney, who owned slaves and wrote the Dred Scott decision but not Jones. The Court unanimously reached the decision that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was constitutional and that the institution of slavery remained a matter for individual states to decide.

Fox v. Ohio, 46 U.S. 410 (1847), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that states may criminalize the spending of counterfeit money. By implication, this case was an early expression of the doctrine that the state and federal governments may punish the same acts as separate sovereigns without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause, but the specific crimes each sovereign charged in this case were slightly different.

United States v. Rogers, 45 U.S. (4 How.) 567 (1846), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States holding that a white man, adopted into an Indian tribe, does not become an Indian for the purposes of criminal jurisdiction.

Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 1 (1842), was a case brought in diversity in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York on a bill of exchange accepted in New York in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that United States federal courts that heard cases brought under their diversity jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act of 1789 must apply statutory state laws when the state legislatures in question had spoken on the issue, but did not have to apply the state's common law if the state legislatures had not spoken on the issue. The ruling meant that the federal courts that decided matters not specifically addressed by the state legislature had the authority to develop a federal general common law. In 1938, this decision was overruled by Erie Railroad Co. v.

Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 539 (1842), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 precluded a Pennsylvania personal liberty law that prohibited freedom seekers from being taken out of the state without due process. The Court overturned the conviction of slavecatcher Edward Prigg as a result.

Groves v. Slaughter, 40 U.S. (15 Pet.) 449 (1841), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court.

(Real Audiencia of Panama, New Spain, suppressed)

Ex Parte Hennen, 38 U.S. 230 (1839), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the removal power under the Appointments Clause.

Wilcox v. Jackson, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 498 (1839), sometimes nicknamed the "Beaubien Land Case" was a legal action decided by the United States Supreme Court concerning the land under Fort Dearborn shortly after incorporation of Chicago as a town in Cook County, Illinois.

Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 657 (1838), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court asserted its original jurisdiction over a suit in equity, a boundary dispute between Massachusetts and Rhode Island dating to colonial times.

Poole v. Fleeger, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 185 (1837), is a 7-to-0 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the states of Kentucky and Tennessee had properly entered into an agreement establishing a mutual border between the two states. The plaintiffs in the case were granted title to property improperly conveyed by the state of Tennessee north of this border. In the ruling, the Supreme Court asserted the fundamental right of states and nations to establish their borders regardless of private contract, and made a fundamental statement about the rights of parties to object to a trial court ruling under the rules of civil procedure.

Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 257 (1837), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving the intersection of states' rights and monetary policy. In an opinion by Justice John McLean, the Court held that a bank under the de facto control of the state of Kentucky could issue banknotes without violating a provision of the Constitution that forbade states from issuing "bills of credit". The 6–1 decision demonstrated the Taney Court's support for Jacksonian principles of states' rights and opposition to federal control of banking.

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420 (1837), was a case regarding the Charles River Bridge and the Warren Bridge of Boston, Massachusetts, heard by the United States Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.

This is an appeal from a decree of the judge of the superior court for the eastern district of Florida, confirming the claim of the appellee to sixteen thousand acres (65 km²) of land; pursuant to the Acts of Congress for the adjustment of land claims in Florida.

Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834), was the first United States Supreme Court ruling on copyright. The case upheld the power of Congress to make a grant of copyright protection subject to conditions and rejected the doctrine of a common law copyright in published works. The Court also declared that there could be no copyright in the Court's own judicial decisions.

United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 150 (1833), was a case in the United States in which the defendant, George Wilson, was convicted of robbing the US Mail, and putting the life of the carrier in danger, in Pennsylvania and sentenced to death. Due to his friends' influence, Wilson was pardoned by Andrew Jackson.

Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in 1833, which helped define the concept of federalism in US constitutional law. The Court ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments, establishing a precedent until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case is also significant for highlighting the separation between federal government and state government.

Ex parte Madrazzo, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 627 (1833), was a US Supreme Court case involving the suit of Juan Madrazo, a Spanish citizen, against the State of Georgia.

Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832), is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court vacated the conviction of Samuel Worcester and held that the Georgia criminal statute that prohibited non-Native Americans from being present on Native American lands without a license from the state was unconstitutional. While the state law was an effort to restrict white settlement on Cherokee territory, Worcester reasoned that obeying the law would, in effect, be surrendering the sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation to manage their own territory. The opinion is most famous for its dicta, which laid out the relationship between tribes, state, and federal governments. It is considered to have built the foundations of the doctrine of tribal sovereignty in the United States.

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case. The Cherokee Nation asked the Court to stop Georgia from enforcing state laws that took away their rights within the Cherokee territory. However, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the cases's merits, stating that it lacked the original jurisdiction, or authority, to decide in a matter between a U.S. state and the Cherokee Nation. Chief Justice John Marshall explained that the Cherokee Nation was not a "foreign nation" but a "domestic dependent nation", comparing their relationship with the United States to that of a "ward to its guardian".

United States v. Tingey, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 115 (1831), was an early United States Supreme Court case held on appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the District of Columbia, which recognized that the U.S. Government has a right to enter into a contract without relying on any specific legal mandate for authorization. The case involved Commodore Thomas Tingey who, with others, had acted as surety for a bond executed on 1 May 1812 by Lewis Deblois, a naval purser.

Shankland v. Washington, 30 U.S. 390 (1831), is a United States Supreme Court case on lotteries and contractual relations, which held that when individuals purchase a share of someone else's contractual right to a future payout, they do not enter into a contractual relationship with the original seller.

Pennock v. Dialogue, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 1 (1829), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held invalid a patent on a method of making hose, because the inventor had commercially exploited the invention for years before filing the patent application. The case has been cited many times for the proposition that the U.S. patent system was not established for the purpose of enriching inventors or their financiers but rather for the purpose of furthering the public interest by stimulating technological progress.

Willson v. Black-Bird Creek Marsh Co., 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 245 (1829), was a significant United States Supreme Court case regarding the definition of the Commerce Clause in Article 1 sec. 8, cl. 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253 (1829) was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that held certain treaties ratified by the United States, even if otherwise valid and in force, cannot be given effect domestically without a specific act of Congress. The ruling articulated a more restrictive interpretation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which automatically grants treaties the force of domestic federal law.

American Fur Co. v. United States, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 358 (1829), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the American Fur Company agent's acts and statements bound the company; that all goods were subject to seizure and forfeiture; but that the instructions on where in Indian territory the seizure could be made was in error to the point that a new trial was required.

American Insurance Company v. Canter, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 511 (1828), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case involved the validity of a local court established by Congress in the Florida Territory whose judges lacked life tenure, as mandated by Article III of the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall upheld the courts on the basis of Congress's broad power to enact local laws for territories under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution. The case was later discussed in Dred Scott v. Sandford, where Chief Justice Roger Taney distinguished it in holding that Congress could not ban slavery within a territory.

United States v. 422 Casks of Wine, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 547 (1828), is an 1828 United States Supreme Court civil forfeiture case between the United States and 422 casks of Malaga wine. The case was brought after the United States moved to seize the wine on the grounds that it had been deliberately mislabeled as sherry to get a tax drawback, and the buyers objected. The original trial was ruled in favor of the United States but was ordered to be retried after errors were discovered concerning jurisdiction. In the subsequent retrial, the Supreme Court ruled against the United States; however, it did grant a certificate of seizure on probable cause.

Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. 19 (1827) was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the president of the United States’ emergency powers and the authority to activate state militias for federal service. The court heard the case of Jacob E. Mott, a militia private who disobeyed orders to mobilize for service during the War of 1812 and then appealed his subsequent court-martial. The court's ruling against Mott had a significant impact on executive powers during national emergencies, according to legal scholars, and has been used to interpret the Insurrection Act of 1807.

Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213 (1827), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined the scope of a bankruptcy law in relation to a clause of the Constitution of the United States. It is notable for its era in producing multiple opinions from the justices. Justice William Johnson delivered the majority opinion. Chief Justice John Marshall, Justice Gabriel Duvall, and Justice Joseph Story concurred in part and dissented in part to the Court's judgment, while Justices Bushrod Washington, Smith Thompson, and Robert Trimble dissented.

Brown v. Maryland, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 419 (1827), was a significant United States Supreme Court case which interpreted the Import-Export and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution to prohibit discriminatory taxation by states against imported items after importation, rather than only at the time of importation. The state of Maryland passed a law requiring importers of foreign goods to obtain a license for selling their products. Brown was charged under this law and appealed. It was the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court construed the Import-Export Clause. Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the opinion of the court, ruling that Maryland's statute violated the Import-Export and Commerce Clauses and the federal law was supreme.

The Antelope, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 66 (1825), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States considered, for the first time, the legitimacy of the international slave trade, and determined "that possession on board of a vessel was evidence of property".

The Thomas Jefferson, 23 U.S. 428 (1825), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that admiralty jurisdiction did not extend to navigable rivers within the United States. The court strictly construed language in the Judiciary Act of 1789 to conclude that Congress did not intend to change the extent of admiralty jurisdiction. The court upheld this doctrine in The Orleans (1837) but overruled it in The Genesee Chief (1851), saying admiralty jurisdiction had always extended to navigable rivers.

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, which is granted to the U.S. Congress by the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, encompasses the power to regulate navigation. The decision is credited with supporting the economic growth of the antebellum United States and the creation of national markets. Gibbons v. Ogden has since provided the basis for Congress' regulation of railroads, freeways and television and radio broadcasts. The exiled Irish patriot Thomas Addis Emmet, as well as Thomas J. Oakley, argued for Ogden, and U.S. Attorney General William Wirt and Daniel Webster argued for Gibbons.

The Emily and the Caroline, 22 U.S. 381 (1824), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in admiralty law, indictments require less formality and technical precision than common law indictments. Additionally, the Supreme Court expressed an anti-circumvention principle for statutory interpretation, in which laws should be read in ways that do not undermine their purpose.

United States v. Josef Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat) 579 (1824), is a case of the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision held that when a criminal trial results in a hung jury, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not prevent the defendant from being retried.

Ex parte Wood, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 603 (1824), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a patent could not be repealed based on summary proceedings without the opportunity for a jury trial. The case exemplifies a tradition in early 19th century United States patent caselaw in which patents were regarded specifically as an absolute property right to exclusive use of the invention, rather than requiring a balancing between public and private interests.

Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824), was a case set in the Banking Crisis of 1819, when many banks, including the Second Bank of the United States, demanded repayment for loans that they had issued on credit that they did not have. That led to an economic downturn and a shortage of money. In 1819, Ohio passed a law that put a tax on the Bank of the United States on the theory that taxing the bank would allow the state government to receive and distribute the scarce money. On September 17, 1819, Ohio Auditor Ralph Osborn was given permission to seize $100,000 from a branch of the Bank of the United States. However, his agents mistakenly took $120,000 although the extra $20,000 was promptly returned.

Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823), also written M‘Intosh, is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that held that private citizens could not purchase lands from Native Americans. As the facts were recited by Chief Justice John Marshall, the successor in interest to a private purchase from the Piankeshaw attempted to maintain an action of ejectment against the holder of a federal land patent. The case is one of the most influential and well-known decisions of the Marshall Court, a fixture of the first-year curriculum in nearly all U.S. law schools. Marshall's opinion lays down the foundations of the doctrine of aboriginal title in the United States, and the related doctrine of discovery.

Evans v. Eaton, 20 U.S. (7 Wheat.) 356 (1822), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, chiefly, that a patent on an improved machine must clearly describe how the machine differs from the prior art. It was the fourth published Supreme Court decision on patents, and the second to deal with substantive patent law. It was also the third of four successive Supreme Court cases related specifically to the Oliver Evans flour mill patent.

Evans v. Hettich, 20 U.S. (7 Wheat.) 453 (1822), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a witness's testimony could not be objected to merely because the witness suffered from "fits of derangement", as long as the witness was sane when he testified. The case was the last of four successive Supreme Court cases related specifically to the Oliver Evans flour mill patent, and the second such case to be decided on the same day, following Evans v. Eaton. Altogether the Evans patent generated twelve reported decisions from 1807 to 1822, making it "one of the most litigated patents in U.S. history". Because the arguments in the case addressed the same substantive issues of law as in Evans v.

Green v. Biddle, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 1 (1823), is a 6-to-1 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the state of Virginia had properly entered into a compact with the United States federal government under Clause One of Article Four of the United States Constitution. This compact surrendered Virginia's claim to the area that eventually became the state of Kentucky, but imposed restrictions on Kentucky's ability to upset title to land sold or otherwise granted by the state of Virginia at the time of the compact. The Supreme Court held that legislation enacted by Kentucky that restricted these rights unconstitutionally infringed on Virginia's right to surrender the land in accordance with Article Four, Clause One.

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821), is a landmark case by the Supreme Court of the United States that asserts the Court's power to review state supreme court decisions in criminal law matters if defendants claim that their constitutional rights have been violated. The Court had previously asserted a similar jurisdiction over civil cases involving U.S. parties (see Martin v. Hunter's Lessee). The defendants were members of a prominent Baltimore banking family. A U.S. senator and two U.S. representatives served as attorneys for the opposing sides. The two defendants, Mendes I. Cohen and Philip I. Cohen, would later rise to the positions of U.S. Army Colonel and Maryland Delegate (Mendes), and U.S. Postmaster (Philip).

Bartle v. Coleman, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 475 (1821), was a United States Supreme Court case.

United States v. Smith, 18 U.S. 153 (1820), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Congress may import the definition of piracy from international law without defining it in the criminal statute with particularity.

United States v. Furlong, 18 U.S. 184 (1820), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that felonies committed in international waters must be specifically defined by Congress, and the Offenses Clause is broad enough that Congress may criminalize offenses on U.S. ships anchored in foreign ports. Essentially, United States v. Furlong made a distinction between international and national jurisdiction. When international law applies (for example, in a case of piracy), the first state to prosecute "uses up" the international law, rendering subsequent prosecutions impossible.