United States Reports

Article Three, Section Two, Clause One of the Constitution of the United States gives the Supreme Court of the United States original jurisdiction over matters including "controversies between two or more States". Historically, this jurisdiction has most often been called upon to settle boundary disputes, in which the states cannot agree on the correct location of the state line between them. While most of these cases are original jurisdiction, a handful have also been decided on appeal from decisions of lower courts, usually arising from disputes between private parties.

Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 122 (1819), dealt with the constitutionality of New York creating bankruptcy laws and retroactively applying those laws.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that defined the scope of the U.S. Congress's legislative power and how it relates to the powers of American state legislatures. The dispute in McCulloch involved the legality of the Second Bank of the United States and a tax that the state of Maryland imposed on it. In its ruling, the Supreme Court established firstly that the Necessary and Proper Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S.

Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819), often called simply The Dartmouth College Case, was a landmark decision in United States corporate law from the United States Supreme Court dealing with the application of the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution to private corporations. The case arose when the president of Dartmouth College was deposed by its trustees, leading to the New Hampshire legislature attempting to force the college to become a public institution and thereby place the ability to appoint trustees in the hands of the governor of New Hampshire. The Supreme Court upheld the sanctity of the original charter of the college, which predated the creation of the State.

Craig et al. v. Radford, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 594 (1818), is a United States Supreme Court decision delivered by Justice Bushrod Washington on March 12, 1818. The dispute arose from a suit in chancery to establish a clear title to land in Kentucky located on the south bank of the Ohio River, 30 miles downriver from the mouth of the Scioto River. A military land warrant for 1,000 acres had been issued by the Colony of Virginia on January 24, 1774, and duly patented by a French and Indian War veteran, William Sutherland. Subsequently, treasury warrants were purchased from the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1780 by Craig et al. which they duly patented over parts of the same property.

Evans v. Eaton, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 454 (1818), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a patent disclosing an improved method of manufacture by means of several different improved machines should be construed to claim both the method and the improvements to the machines, but not to include the machines apart from the inventor's improvements. It was the third published Supreme Court decision on patents, and the first to deal with substantive patent law. It was the first Supreme Court case to deal with the question of when an invention is patentably distinct from the prior art. It was also the second of four successive Supreme Court cases related specifically to the Oliver Evans flour mill patent.

Laidlaw v. Organ, 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 178 (1817), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that established the rule that buyers need not disclose advantageous information to sellers. This rule should not be confused with either caveat emptor—a rule placing the burden of due diligence on the purchaser of goods—or caveat venditor—the rule that vendor sales come with an implied warranty.

United States v. Barker, 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 395 (1817), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court upholding the common law tradition that private citizens may not demand costs from the federal government. The case involved a motion for costs filed against the United States Government and resolved the previously unanswered question of whether courts could award costs against the United States federal government. The Court's opinion read, in its entirety, "The United States never pay costs." Jurists have remarked that Chief Justice John Marshall's six-word opinion is one of the shortest Supreme Court cases ever written.

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that asserted ultimate Supreme Court authority over state courts in civil matters of federal law.

Terrett v. Taylor, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 43 (1815), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that the Commonwealth of Virginia could not confiscate Episcopal church land.

Evans v. Jordan, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 199 (1815), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that someone who had copied a patented invention after the patent had expired, and before the patent was restored by a private bill, would be liable for damages for patent infringement for any use continuing after the patent was restored. It was the second published Supreme Court decision on patent law, and the first of four Supreme Court cases dealing with the Oliver Evans flour mill patent. Like other Supreme Court patent cases prior to Evans v. Eaton, however, this case did not deal with substantive patent law, but only with issues of statutory construction and infringement liability.

Mima Queen and Child v. Hepburn, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 290 (1813), was a United States Supreme Court case, affirming a denial of a petition for freedom. By refusing to create a new exception to the hearsay rule, which would admit second-hand testimony of an ancestor's freedom into evidence, the case had important implications for the law of evidence and the American antislavery movement.

Cargo of the Brig Aurora v. United States, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 382 (1813), involved a forfeiture statute that Congress passed with a condition. The 1809 Non-Intercourse Act, a trade prohibition against Great Britain, would be reinstated the following year unless the President declared that it was no longer violating the neutrality of the United States. The Court unanimously rejected arguments based on the nondelegation doctrine, "reviving the act [...] neither expressly or conditionally, as their judgment should direct."

Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 603 (1813), was a United States Supreme Court case arising out of the acquisition of lands originally granted by the British King Charles II (then in exile) in 1649 to Lord Fairfax in the Northern Neck and westward (all in what became the state of Virginia).

United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32 (1812), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that Congress must first enact a constitutional law criminalizing an activity, attach a penalty, and give the federal courts jurisdiction over the offense in order for the court to render a conviction. In other words, there is no federal common law of crimes.

The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 (1812), is a United States Supreme Court case on the jurisdiction of federal courts over a claim against a friendly foreign military vessel visiting an American port. The court interpreted customary international law to determine that there was no jurisdiction.

O'Neale v. Thornton, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 53 (1810), is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that neither the state of Maryland nor the government of the District of Columbia authorized the resale of foreclosed government land at a price less than the original sale price. In establishing the District of Columbia, the D.C. government had sold land to original investors at $66.50 per lot. The investors failed to pay, so the government foreclosed and resold the land to a second investor at the same price. The second investor failed to pay, so the government foreclosed again and sold the land to a third investor at a price lower than the original sale price. This third sale, the Supreme Court said, was illegal.

Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Supreme Court first ruled a state law unconstitutional. The decision created a growing precedent for the sanctity of legal contracts and hinted that Native Americans did not hold complete title to their own lands (an idea fully realized in Johnson v. McIntosh).

Tyler v. Tuel, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 324 (1810), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an assignee of a geographically limited patent right could not bring an action in the assignee's own name. It was the first published Supreme Court decision on patent law. Like other Supreme Court patent cases prior to Evans v. Eaton, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 454 (1818), however, it did not deal with substantive patent law, but only with the law of patent assignment.

Hodgson and Thompson v. Bowerbank, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 303 (1809), was a United States Supreme Court case that held part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. The invalidated portion conferred federal courts jurisdiction to try cases between aliens.

Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75 (1807), was a case brought before the United States Supreme Court. Bollman held that the constitutional definition of treason excluded mere conspiracy to levy war against the United States. The Supreme Court decided that "To constitute a levying of war, there must be an assemblage of persons for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose. Enlistments of men to serve against government is not sufficient."

Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States first addressed the question of complete diversity for diversity jurisdiction.

This is a list of Supreme Court of the United States cases in the areas of military justice, national security, and other aspects of war. This list is a list solely of United States Supreme Court decisions about applying law related to war. Not all Supreme Court decisions are ultimately influential and, as in other fields, not all important decisions are made at the Supreme Court level. Many federal courts issue rulings that are significant or come to be influential, but those are outside the scope of this list.

United States v. More, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 159 (1805), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear appeals from criminal cases in the circuit courts by writs of error. Relying on the Exceptions Clause, More held that Congress's enumerated grants of appellate jurisdiction to the Court operated as an exercise of Congress's power to eliminate all other forms of appellate jurisdiction. The second of forty-one criminal cases heard by the Marshall Court, More ensured that the Court's criminal jurisprudence would be limited to writs of error from the state (and later, territorial) courts, original habeas petitions and writs of error from habeas petitions in the circuit courts, and certificates of division and mandamus from the circuit courts.

United States v. Fisher, 6 U.S. 358 (1805), is a United States Supreme Court case about whether debts to the government are preferred for settlement in bankruptcy proceedings.

United States v. Schooner Sally, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 406 (1805), was an 1805 decision of the United States Supreme Court which found that the question of forfeiture of a vessel is of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, not of common law.

Capron v. Van Noorden, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 126 (1804), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court allowed a plaintiff to dismiss a case that he had lost at trial because of a lack of diversity jurisdiction, leaving the plaintiff free to bring the case again in North Carolina.

Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 170 (1804), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the President of the United States does not have "inherent authority" or "inherent powers" that allow him to ignore a law passed by the U.S. Congress.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that established the principle of judicial review, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law. It established that the U.S. Constitution is actually law, not merely a statement of political principles and ideals. It also helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the federal government.

United States v. Simms, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 252 (1803), was a United States Supreme Court case. It was one of a series of cases dealing with the applicability of previous laws in the newly created District of Columbia.

Stuart v. Laird, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 299 (1803), was a case decided by United States Supreme Court notably a week after its famous decision in Marbury v. Madison. Stuart dealt with a judgment of a circuit judge whose position had been abolished by the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801. Stuart's lawyer was Charles Lee, who also represented William Marbury. John Laird asked the Supreme Court to uphold the judge's ruling. Stuart's team argued that only the court rendering a judgment could enforce it and that the Judiciary Act of 1802 had been unconstitutional, to which Stuart lost on both accounts. The Court reviewed and upheld the Judiciary Act of 1802 and averted a dangerous showdown between the legislative and the judicial branches of the United States government.

United States v. Hooe, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 318 (1803), is a case of the Supreme Court of the United States. It was a case that hinged mainly on procedural issues relating to the documents that must accompany an appeal from courts within the District of Columbia.

Talbot v. Seeman, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 1 (1801), was a United States Supreme Court case. It involved maritime law, specifically the circumstances under which salvage rights attach to a neutral vessel captured by enemy forces and then recaptured by the United States Navy.

Wilson v. Mason, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 45 (1801), was a United States Supreme Court case. It resolved a dispute between George Wilson and Founding Father George Mason over 8,400 acres (34 km) of land along the Green River in present-day Kentucky.

United States v. Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103 (1801), was a United States Supreme Court case. It was one of a series of cases resolving disputes over ships captured during the undeclared Quasi-War between the United States and France from 1798 to 1800. The vessel was ordered returned to France.

Resler v. Shehee, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 110 (1801), was a United States Supreme Court case that involved judicial discretion on whether to hear appeals filed late.

Mossman v. Higginson, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 12 (1800), was an 1800 decision of the United States Supreme Court asserting that "The parties to an equity suit must be so described on the record as to show that the court has jurisdiction. It is not enough that an alien is a party; the other party must be a citizen. A writ of error may be amended by filling the blank left for the return day, there being enough on the writ to amend by."

Course v. Stead, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 22 (1800), was an 1800 decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the court held that "A writ of error, tested in the vacation after the last term, is amendable. The omission of the name of the district in the address of the writ is not material if the indorsement and attestation show the district. If the value of the matter in dispute does not appear, it may be shown by affidavit. If a new party and subject-matter are brought before the court by a supplemental bill, it must show that the court has jurisdiction by reason of the citizenship of the parties to that bill." The decision also held that the Supreme Court could take judicial notice of state laws without the laws having to be proved proved as fact in lower courts.

Priestman v. United States, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 28 (1800), was an 1800 decision of the United States Supreme Court asserting that "Under the 19th section of the act of February 18th, 1793, (1 Stats, at Large, 313,) goods are liable to forfeiture though they did not belong to the master, owner, or any mariner of the vessel in which they were imported, and though the duties were paid on them at the port of entry." It was decided on August 13, 1800.

Bas v. Tingy, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 37 (1800) was a case in maritime law, argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1800. The parties were John Bas, owner of the private vessel Eliza which was captured by French privateers at sea, and Tingy, commander of a public armed vessel—the Ganges—which recovered the Eliza.

New York v. Connecticut, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 1 (1799), was a lawsuit heard by the Supreme Court of the United States between the State of New York against the State of Connecticut in 1799 that arose from a land dispute between private parties. The case was the first case in which the Supreme Court exercised its original jurisdiction under Article III of the United States Constitution to hear controversies between two states.

Hazlehurst v. United States, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 6 (1799), was a 1799 decision of the United States Supreme Court asserting that the appellants' (several similar cases were combined) failures to appear in court regarding their writs of error resulted in the Court issuing a orders of non prosequitur. The case was a federal case from South Carolina disputing their written seal on a bond which was purportedly improper because a wax seal was required.

Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 8 (1799), was a 1799 decision of the United States Supreme Court asserting that "[t]he 11th section of the Judiciary Act, (1 U. S. Stats. at Large, 78.) makes it necessary to state on the record the citizenship of the payee of a negotiable note sued on by an indorsee."

Dewhurst v. Coulthard, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 409 (1799), was a United States Supreme Court case that initiated with a civil suit brought by Isaac Coulthard (owner of Coulthard's Brewery) against John Dewhurst which reached the Court by a convoluted process. The Court refused to hear the case: "This court will not take cognizance of any suit, or controversy not brought before them by regular process of law."

Lindsey v. Miller, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 411 (1799), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that: "The fact that the land demanded in a suit was granted by and is claimed under a State, does not make the State a party to the suit, within the meaning of the second section of the third article of the constitution. Nor does an issue upon the point whether the land demanded is within the limits of the State. A certiorari does not issue to remove a cause, on account of want of jurisdiction in the court in which it is pending."

Sims's Lessee v. Irvine, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 425 (1799), is an early United States Supreme Court case about conflicting land claims. General William Irvine had been granted Montour's Island by Pennsylvania for his service in the American Revolutionary War, but the island was also claimed by Charles Simms of Virginia. The Court unanimously found in favor of Simms, who had the earlier claim. The Court held that: "A military right to unappropriated land in America, acquired under a royal proclamation of 1763, was made assignable by the law of Virginia, to an inhabitant of that State. Obtaining a warrant and so locating it as to describe a particular parcel of land, gave to the assignee a complete equitable title, which was confirmed by the compact between Pennsylvania and Virginia.

Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled early in America's history that the president of the United States has no formal role in the process of amending the United States Constitution and that the Eleventh Amendment was binding on cases already pending prior to its ratification.

Bingham v. Cabot, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 382 (1798), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Cabot family, a wealthy Yankee shipping family from New England. It was the second such case following the 1795 Bingham v. Cabot case. In the case the Court held that in diversity suits in federal courts, a party must allege appropriate citizenship and not simply residence, otherwise it may be stricken from the docket.

Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided four important points of constitutional law.

Jennings v. The Perseverance, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 336 (1797), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that: "The decision in Wiscart v. Dauchy, (3 P. 321,) confirmed. An objection that counsel fees were allowed in the court below as part of the damages, can not be entertained unless the fact appears by the record. If a prize is sold by agreement, and the money stopped in the hands of the marshal, by a third person, not a party to the agreement, increased damages are not allowed, but only interest on the debt."