Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee is a case heard by the Supreme Court involving a land dispute. Lord Thomas Fairfax was a British Loyalist and landowner in Virginia during the American Revolution. Virginia enacted legislation during the war that allowed for the seizure of land held by those people loyal to the British and took Lord Fairfax’s property. Virginia then granted ownership of a tract of the seized property to David Hunter. After the war ended, the United States and Great Britain agreed to a treaty in which the United States guaranteed to protect the ownership of land held by British Loyalists. When Lord Fairfax died, his nephew, Thomas Martin, inherited the Lord’s land holdings and subsequently sued Virginia to recover the property taken during the American Revolution. Martin was victorious in state court and Hunter appealed to the Virginia Court of Appeals where the lower court’s decision was reversed. Martin then appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that since the treaty superseded the state’s law, Martin was the rightful owner of the land and remanded the case back to Virginia Court of Appeals to enter a decision for Martin. The Virginia Court of Appeals refused to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision and questioned the Court’s jurisdiction in cases decided by a state court. The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether or not the Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction over a state court in matters involving federal law. In other words, did the Supreme Court have the power to hear appeals in cases involving federal law that were decided by a state court? The Court found that it did have such jurisdiction as granted by the Constitution. Article III,... ... middle of paper ... ...ried precedents in law. This decision confirmed the supremacy of the Supreme Court as the single deciding body for the interpretation of federal law and Constitutional issues. Ex parte McCardle is the only instance of Congress taking action to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This case affirmed the constitutionally granted power of Congress to make exceptions it deems necessary and limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish is important because it allows the judiciary to decide on issues that developed based on changes in society since the Constitution was written. The writers of the Constitution could not foresee how society would change over time, but recognized it would. This decision provides the judiciary the means to apply what is written in the Constitution to an ever-changing world.
According to William E. Leuchtenburg, along with other successors, West Coast Hotel v. Parrish was the case that constituted a constitutional revolution. Leuchtenburg gives evidence of the main arguments of his opinion concerning the shift in the Court during this particular case as well as others that came after it. The significance of this case was that it upheld the “minimum wage” legislation passed by Washington State even though there was the uprising issue of “liberty of contract.” The presented case of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish provoked a constitutional revolution in the United States (Leuchtenburg, pg. 163). This case was not an open-and-shut case and encountered much opposition especially from the review of Tipaldo. As a result, it overturned the decision made by the trial court, which was based on the case, Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (Leuchtenburg, pg. 164).
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
There have been several different Supreme Court cases over the years that have been influential to most everybody who is aware of them. For example, the case of Roe vs. Wade was and still is immensely influential and is the cause of pro-life/pro-choice debates. Another important case was Marbury vs. Madison, which was the first Supreme Court case to ever declare that a law passed by Congress was unconstitutional. Even though those two cases were a couple of the most important and influential in American history nothing compares to the influence that the case of Gideon vs. Wainwright has provided, in my opinion. This case was tremendously important to the way that law enforcement is to be carried out in that it forced detectives and FBI’s and the like to “do their homework” before declaring someone guilty of a crime. Although this case was very influential on the way police forces carry out their duties, I think the case was mostly important in that it forced all courts in the U.S. to have a greater recognition of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution and the story of the victim involved in this case.
(7) Right to appellate review: The Supreme Court did not rule regarding appeal since their ruling was this case was to be remanded back to the lower courts.
Consequently, Richard and Mildred’s case was heard in a City Court of Virginia, where they both plead guilty because a city lawyer representing their case
1. Does the Supreme Court have the responsibility to interpret the constitutionality of a case, that is brought up for review as it is presented at its face value, or should it consider the ultimate impact that it could have ...
1. The court stated that they did have power to hear this case: "Since the court has consistently exercised the power to construe and delineate claims arising under express powers, it must follow that the Court has authority to interpret claims with respect to powers alleged to derive from enumerated powers."
Johnson V. M’Intosh case illustrates how the developing United States established the ownership of the Native American land that is now the United States of America. In the case, Johnson had inherited land that was previously owned by a Native American tribe. On the other hand, M’Intosh claimed ownership of the same land because his family had purchased the land from the United States. In the end, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the favor of M’Intosh ownership of the land, because the land is federally owned by the United States government. Chief Justice, John Marshall bases his decision on the “Doctrine of Discovery”, a law that allowed colonial powers to claim newly discovered land. As stated in the course readings, Uneven Roads; the text goes onto explain that Marshall didn’t believe that the Indians had any ‘right of occupancy’ and are not entitled to the ownership of their land. Shaw further
Overall, the ruling in this case was a perfect interpretation of the Constitution. Despite opposition claiming that it is not addressed in the Constitution, too few rights are ever addressed in the Constitution of the United States. That is why there is a thing called Judicial Review. By utilizing judicial review, the interpreters of the law –Supreme Court, may make changes to policies and laws. Abortion, medicinal marijuana, and marriage fall under the umbrella of Equal Protection since they correspond to the rights and liberties of US citizens.
In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled against Dred Scott, and in favor of John Sanford. The Court stated that temporary residence in a Free State or territory did not make Dred Scott free. It is said that Dred Scott was John Sanford’s property, not a citizen, and therefore had no right to sue in the Court. It is further reasoned that no African American could be a citizen. The Court also ruled that Congress does not have the power to ban slavery from any territory because doing so would take away slave owners' property. Therefore in this case, the Missouri Compromise was considered
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
The District of Columbia v. Heller plays an important role in shaping our right to keep and bear arms for self-defense by being the first court case that defines who can own guns for self-defend. The whole case is revolving around the Second Amendment and its meaning. Since the Second Amendment first enact into law in 1791, this prompts the court to look at it again. By understanding its original meaning, the court then can understand what intended to do and how it affects our current time. Before the Heller court case, States in America have its own laws on who can own and use guns. While some State is lax in their law...
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
The case involved several questions the Supreme Court had to answer. The first question was whether or not Marbury had a right to the commission. The Court decided that he did have the right because the appointment was issued while Adams was still in office and took effect as soon as it was signed. The next question was to determine if the law gave Marbury remedy. The Court found that the law did provide remedy for Marbury. Adams signed the appointment and Marshall sealed it thereby giving Marbury legal right to the office he was appointed to. Therefore, denying delivery of the appointment to him was a violation of his rights and the law provides him remedy. The third question was to determine whether the Supreme Court had the authority to review acts o...