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 The Supreme Court found that since the treaty superseded the state’s law, Martin was the rightful owner of the land and remanded the case back to Virginia Court of Appeals to enter a decision for Martin.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.
Chief Justice John Marshall was an intelligent man who served in the United States Supreme Court from 1801 until the year 1835. During this time, Marshall heard over 1,000 cases and wrote 519 decisions (Fox). One of the cases he heard took place in 1824, and it’s known as Gibbons v. Ogden. This case is a rather simple one, but an important one nonetheless. A problem arose when two men, named Thomas Gibbons and Aaron Ogden, found out that they were both operating steamboat ferries along the same route. These men had both received permission to operate their steamboats from two different places. Gibbons received permission from the Federal Government, while Ogden had received his from a state government. When the case reached the Supreme Court,
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.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
The Marbury versus Madison case of 1803 irrefutably remains one of the most significant cases in history of the Supreme Court, because it was the first United States Supreme Court case to utilize the principle known as judicial review (History.com Staff, 2009). This principle gives the Judicial Branch of the government, in particular the federal courts, the power to declare an act of Congress null and void if they find that it conflicts with the Constitution of the United States. This mandate, by Chief Justice John Marshall, would become a point of contention that places the Supreme Court on par with not only Congress, but the Executive Branch of the government as well.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
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...
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
Worchester, . "John Marshall’s Decision on Worcester v. Georgia." PBS. Community Television of Southern California, 18 Mar 2010. Web. 15 Jan 2014. .
... College v. Woodward provided corporations and private economic institutions protection from state government regulations, thus allowing industry and business to expand (Newmyer, 247). The decision made by Marshall influenced several different areas in American society and have left their perpetual mark on America’s court system, judicial branch, and economic system. While the Marshall Court may have been a mere speck in the history of the United States, its decisions have lived on for hundreds of years.
Parise, A. S. (1991). Maryland v. Craig: Ignoring the Letter and Purpose of the Confrontation Clause. Brigham Young University Law Review , 1093-2007.
* Longley, Robert. "Chruch and State: How the Court Decides." U.S. Gov Info/Resources n.d. 12 Nov. 2001 .
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
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.
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
If Chief Justice John Marshall had claimed that in either case of “Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia” or “Worcester vs.