DOCSLIB.ORG

Readings in Parallel Judiciaries Paul E

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Readings in Parallel Judiciaries Paul E University of Kentucky UKnowledge Law Faculty Books Law Faculty Publications 8-14-2018 Readings in Parallel Judiciaries Paul E. Salamanca University of Kentucky College of Law, [email protected] Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits oy u. Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/lawfac_book Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Salamanca, Paul E., "Readings in Parallel Judiciaries" (2018). Law Faculty Books. 6. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/lawfac_book/6 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Faculty Publications at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Books by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. READINGS IN PARALLEL JUDICIARIES PAUL E. SALAMANCA READINGS IN PARALLEL JUDICIARIES PAUL E. SALAMANCA © 2018 Paul E. Salamanca ii To Cynthia iii iv Table of Contents The Constitution of the United States. 1 Declaration of Independence. 19 The Constitution of the United States (excerpt). 20 Federalist No. 51 (Madison). 21 Brutus (Fifteenth Essay).. 22 Federalist No. 78 (Hamilton). 24 Notes on the Declaration, Article III, Madison, Brutus, and Hamilton. 27 Sheldon v. Sill. 29 Notes on Sheldon v. Sill. 30 Ex parte McCardle. 31 Notes on McCardle. 35 Webster v. Doe.. 39 Notes on Webster v. Doe. 48 Osborn v. Bank of the United States. 53 Bank of the United States v. Planters’ Bank of Georgia. 58 Notes on Osborn and Planters’ Bank. 59 National Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co.. 67 Notes on Tidewater. 72 Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills. 74 Notes on Lincoln Mills. 84 Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria. 87 v Notes on Verlinden. 95 Mesa v. California. 96 Notes on Mesa. 101 Crowell v. Benson. 103 Notes on Crowell v. Benson. 111 Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.. 115 Notes on Northern Pipeline. 138 Commodity Futures Trading Commn v. Schor. 143 Notes on Schor.. 160 Stern v. Marshall. 163 Notes on Stern v. Marshall.. 182 Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC. 187 Notes on Oil States.. 203 Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley. 205 Notes on Mottley. 207 American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co.. 208 Notes on Well Works.. 209 Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co... 211 Notes on Smith.. 214 Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson. 215 Notes on Merrell Dow. 223 Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.. 227 vi Notes on Skelly Oil. 230 Franchise Tax Board of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust.. 230 Notes on Franchise Tax Board.. 239 Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson. 241 Notes on Beneficial National Bank. 249 A Quick Note on Diversity Jurisdiction.. 249 Tafflin v. Levitt. 251 Notes on Tafflin. 257 Testa v. Katt.. 258 Notes on Testa. 261 Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co.. 261 Notes on Dice.. 266 In re Tarble.. 266 Notes on Tarble. 272 Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins. 275 Notes on Erie. 281 Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States.. 283 Notes on Clearfield Trust.. 286 J.I. Case Co. v. Borak.. ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights
    Florida State University College of Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Publications 11-2014 A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights Wayne A. Logan Florida State University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 235 (2014), Available at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles/161 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\90-1\NDL106.txt unknown Seq: 1 8-DEC-14 14:43 A HOUSE DIVIDED: WHEN STATE AND LOWER FEDERAL COURTS DISAGREE ON FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS Wayne A. Logan* “The operation of a double system of conflicting laws in the same state is plainly hostile to the reign of law. Janus was not a god of justice.”1 Despite our many differences, “We the People”2 take as a given that rights contained in our Federal Constitution will apply with equal force throughout the land. As John Jay put it in The Federalist No. 22, “we have uniformly been one people; each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection.”3 To better ensure federal rights uniformity, the Framers included the Supremacy Clause in the Consti- tution4 and ordained that there be “one supreme Court”5 to harmonize what Justice Joseph Story termed “jarring and discordant judgments”6 of lower courts, giving rise to “public mischiefs.”7 © 2014 Wayne A.
    [Show full text]
  • Guantanamo, Boumediene, and Jurisdiction-Stripping: the Mpei Rial President Meets the Imperial Court" (2009)
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2009 Guantanamo, Boumediene, and Jurisdiction- Stripping: The mpI erial President Meets the Imperial Court Martin J. Katz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Katz, Martin J., "Guantanamo, Boumediene, and Jurisdiction-Stripping: The mpeI rial President Meets the Imperial Court" (2009). Constitutional Commentary. 699. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/699 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Article GUANTANAMO, BOUMEDIENE, AND JURISDICTION-STRIPPING: THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENT MEETS THE IMPERIAL COURT Martin J. Katz* INTRODUCTION In Boumediene v. Bush,1 the Supreme Court struck down a major pillar of President Bush's war on terror: the indefinite de­ tention of terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Court held that even non-citizen prisoners held by the United States government on foreign soil could challenge their confinement by seeking a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, and that the procedures the government had provided for such challenges were not an adequate substitute for the writ." As a habeas corpus case, Boumediene may well be revolu­ tionary.3 However, Boumediene is more than merely a habeas * Interim Dean and Associate Professor of Law. University of Denver College of Law; Yale Law School. J.D. 1991: Harvard College. A.B. 1987. Thanks to Alan Chen.
    [Show full text]
  • Lincoln and Habeas: of Merryman and Milligan and Mccardle
    Lincoln and Habeas: Of Merryman and Milligan and McCardle John Yoo* Three cases define the Supreme Court's encounter with the Civil War: Ex parte Merryman,' Ex parte Milligan,2 and Ex parte McCardle.3 All three case names bear the styling "ex parte" because all three were brought on behalf of citizens detained by the armed forces of the Union. All three detainees sought release under the ancient writ of habeas corpus, which requires the government to demonstrate to a federal judge the factual and legal grounds for detention.4 I will explain why the cases of the Civil War did not assume the landmark importance, despite their circumstances and language, as a Marbury v. Madison, McCullough v. Maryland, or Brown v. Board of Education, but instead showed the deferential attitude of the Supreme Court to the other branches of the government during wartime. Merryman was a Maryland militia officer who had blown up railroad bridges between Washington, D.C. and the North, and was training secessionist troops in the earliest days of the Civil War.5 Milligan was an alleged member of an insurgent force in Indiana that was sympathetic to the Confederacy.6 He was tried and sentenced by a military commission-an old form of ad hoc military court established by commanders for the trial of violations of the laws of war and the administration of justice in occupied territory.7 * Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law, Chapman Law School (2008-09); Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute. The author thanks Ben Petersen and Janet Galeria for outstanding research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • And Mccardle)
    Merryman and Milligan (and Mccardle) JOHN YOO* It has been said that only Jesus and Shakespeare have been the subject of more works than Abraham Lincoln. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't still keep trying to get things right. I am going to be adding to that body of literature, on the relationship between Lincoln, the Supreme Court, and the Civil War. The cases that I address here make up two­ federacy, in Indiana, who was tried and sen­ thirds of the three "m"s of the Supreme Court's tence by a military commission-an old form encounter with the Civil War: Ex parte Mer­ of ad hoc military court established by com­ ryman, 1 Ex parte Milligan,2 and Ex parte Mc­ manders for the trial of violations of the laws Cardle. 3 All three case names bear the styling of war and the administration of justice in oc­ "ex parte" because all three were brought on cupied territory. behalf of citizens detained by the armed forces In these two cases, federal courts ordered ofthe Union. All three detainees sought release the release of the petitioners on the ground that under the ancient writ of habeas corpus, which the military had exceeded its constitutional au­ requires the government to show the factual thority. Both opinions contained stirring lan­ and legal grounds for detention to a federal guage about the vitality of constitutional rights judge. I will explain why the cases of the Civil even under the pressure of wartime and the War did not assume the landmark importance, need to maintain checks and balances on the despite their circumstances and language, of a executive's powers.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    1st DRAFT SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Nos. 74-1055 AND 74-1222 W. T. Stone, Warden,! . Petitioner On Wnt of Certwran to the 74-1055 ' United States Court of Appeals Lloyd Ch;ies Powell. for the Ninth Circuit. Charles L. Wolff, Jr.,) . Warden, Petitioner, On Wnt of Cert1oran to the ?'4-1222 v United States Court of Appeale 'd L. R' for the Eighth Circuit. D av1 . 1ce. [May -, 1976] Mn. JusTICE PowELL delivered the opinion of the Court. Respondents in these cases were convicted of criminal offenses in state courts, and their convictions were af­ firmed on appeal. The prosecution in each case relied upon evidence obtained by searches and seizures alleged by respondents to have been unlawful. Each respondent subsequently sought relief in a federal district court by filing a petition for a writ of federal habeas corpus under- 28 U. S. C. § 2254. The question presented is whether a federal court should consider, in ruling on a petition for· habeas corpus relief filed by a state prisoner, a claim that evidence obtained by an unconstitutional search or sei­ zure was introduced at his trial, when he has previously been afforded an opportunity for full and fair litigation of his claim in the state courts. The issue is of consid­ erable importance to the administration of criminal justice. 74-1055 & 74-1222-0PINION 2 STONE v. POWELL I We summarize first the relevant facts and procedural history of these cases. Respondent Lloyd Powell was convicted of murder in June 1968 after trial in a California state court.
    [Show full text]
  • Patchak V Zinke
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2017 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus PATCHAK v. ZINKE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 16–498. Argued November 7, 2017—Decided February 27, 2018 Petitioner David Patchak filed suit challenging the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to invoke the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U. S. C. §5108, and take into trust a property (Bradley Property) on which respondent Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians wished to build a casino. In Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 567 U. S. 209 (Patchak I), this Court held that the Secretary lacked sovereign immunity and that Patchak had standing, and it remanded the case for further pro- ceedings. While the suit was back in District Court, Congress enact- ed the Gun Lake Act, 128 Stat. 1913, which “reaffirmed as trust land” the Bradley Property, §2(a), and provided that “an action . relating to [that] land shall not be filed or maintained in a Federal court and shall be promptly dismissed,” §2(b).
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of the Steel Seizures Upon the Theory of Inherent Sovereign Powers of the Federal Government
    South Carolina Law Review Volume 5 Issue 1 Article 4 9-1952 The Impact of the Steel Seizures upon the Theory of Inherent Sovereign Powers of the Federal Government Arthur M. Williams Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr Recommended Citation Williams, Arthur M. Jr. (1952) "The Impact of the Steel Seizures upon the Theory of Inherent Sovereign Powers of the Federal Government," South Carolina Law Review: Vol. 5 : Iss. 1 , Article 4. Available at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr/vol5/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Williams: The Impact of the Steel Seizures upon the Theory of Inherent Sove THE IMPACT OF THE STEEL SEIZURES UPON TE THEORY OF INHERENT SOVEREIGN POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARTHuR M. WILLIAMS, JR.* On the evening of April 8, 1952, the President of the United States issued Executive Order 103401, thereby directing the Secretary of Commerce, Charles Sawyer, to forthwith take possession of such plants, facilities, and other properties of more than eighty com- panies, as he should deem necessary in the interest of National De- fense and to "operate or to arrange for the operation thereof and to do all things necessary for, or incident to, such operation ' 2 . Acting pursuant to this Executive Order, Mr. Sawyer issued his Order No. 1 bearing the same date, stating that he deemed it neces- sary, in the interest of National defense, to take possession of cer- tain plants, a list of which was attached to the Order, and that by virtue of said Order he did therewith take possession of the therein enumerated plants, some seven in number.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdiction Stripping Circa 2020: What the Dialogue (Still) Has to Teach Us
    MONAGHAN IN PRINTER FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 9/16/2019 3:03 PM Duke Law Journal VOLUME 69 OCTOBER 2019 NUMBER 1 JURISDICTION STRIPPING CIRCA 2020: WHAT THE DIALOGUE (STILL) HAS TO TEACH US HENRY P. MONAGHAN† ABSTRACT Since its publication in 1953, Henry Hart’s famous article, The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts: An Exercise in Dialectic, subsequently referred to as simply “The Dialogue,” has served as the leading scholarly treatment of congressional control over the federal courts. Now in its seventh decade, much has changed since Hart first wrote. This Article examines what lessons The Dialogue still holds for its readers circa 2020. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................2 A. 1953 and Beyond ......................................................................2 B. The Dialogue: A Preliminary Look ........................................5 I. The Essential Role of the Supreme Court ........................................10 A. Hart and the Court’s Essential Role....................................10 B. The Critical Responses and the Apparently Dominant View.........................................................................................13 C. Textual and Other Ambiguities ............................................16 D. The Supreme Court, Limited Government, and the Rule of Law...........................................................................................21 E. Purpose and Jurisdiction-Stripping ......................................27
    [Show full text]
  • Patriots, Pirates, Politicians and Profit Seekers
    Teacher’s Edition: Frameworks, Standards, Resources & Activities Patriots, Pirates, Politicians Field PoulosThe St. Lawrence, Webb, Master and School district United States Newton Profit Seekers NH prize parental notification New Hampshire Cases and the United States Supreme Court libelappeals Young Penhallow Second Edition-2015 civil liberties DeGregory Coe v.Town of Errol of v.Town Coe H.P. Welch Austin unconstitutional MonitorDoanes's Administrators Patriot Co. oleoNew margarine HampshireClapper Head Renaud Wooley Baer case laws trustees Webster Abbott Parker Woodward Souter schooltax Company Woolen & Cotton Lake Winnipiseogee causes Saunders Louisiana Vermont Drew private judgment PlannedWyman Parenthood Chaplinsky Maynard Dartmouth College liability Munsey Sweezy Uphaus Piper equality Fernandezgovernor Amoskeag Manufacturing Co. MansRoy Collins Northeast Airlines Cox statute Supreme Court Lang decision vacated Perry Collins laws contract Hustler clause Vachon Keeton Woodbury Piper charter Rosenblatt Land Company Bradford Electric Co Jumel Woodward New England Power Co. Ayotte By Joan M. Blanchard and Attorney Martin J. Bender With Honorable Kathleen A. McGuire, Robert J. Lamberti, Jr., and Arthur Pease Published by the New Hampshire Bar Association, with support from the New Hampshire Supreme Court Society. Patriots, Pirates, Politicians and Profit Seekers New Hampshire Cases and the United States Supreme Court Second Edition – 2015 Teachers’ Edition By Joan M. Blanchard and Attorney Martin J. Bender With Honorable Kathleen A. McGuire, Attorney Robert J. Lamberti, Jr. and Arthur Pease Copyright 2015 and 1996 © New Hampshire Bar Association All Rights Reserved Permission to copy, and distribute the contents of this publication is hereby granted for noncommercial purposes. No copyright is claimed in the text of statutes, regulations, court rules, and excerpts from court opinions quoted within this document.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Power Over the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Has Never Been Judically Determined Because the 124208 U.S
    University of Pennsylvania Law Review FOUNDED 1852 Formerly American Law Register VOL. 109 DECEMBER, 1960 No. 2 CONGRESSIONAL POWER OVER -THE APPELLATE JTRISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT LEONARD G. RATNER t The Constitution gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make" over all cases within the judicial power of the United States originating in state or lower federal courts.1 From time to time since 1796 the Supreme Court has used language in its opinions sug- gesting that by virtue of the exceptions and regulations clause its ap- t Lecturer, Harvard Law School. A.B. 1937, University of California (Los An- geles); LL.B. 1940, University of California (Berkeley). Member, California Bar. 1 U.S. CoNsT. art. III, § 2. See Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821) ; Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816). After defining the judicial power of the United States, the section provides that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in certain specified cases and appellate jurisdiction "in all the other Cases before mentioned." The original jurisdiction thus granted is not exclusive; state and lower federal courts may constitutionally exercise a concurrent jurisdiction in such cases. Plaquemines Tropical Fruit Co. v. Henderson, 170 U.S. 511 (1898) ; Ames v. Kansas ex rel. Johnston, 111 U.S. 449 (1884) ; B6rs v. Preston, 111 U.S. 252 (1884); United States v. Ravara, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 297 (C.C.D. Pa. 1793). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1251, 1331-32, 1345, 1350-51 (1958) ; Act of Sept.
    [Show full text]
  • John Marshall As Chief Justice
    DEFINING THE OFFICE: JOHN MARSHALL AS CHIEF JUSTICE † CHARLES F. HOBSON Credit for making the United States Supreme Court a significant player in the American scheme of government has been attributed to the masterful leadership of John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835. By the latter year, the Supreme Court had acquired a kind of parity with Congress and the Executive that it did not possess in 1801. Central to this development was the Court’s ap- propriation of the Constitution as its special preserve. Marshall and his brethren built up the Court’s institutional strength by successfully asserting a claim to expound the Constitution and apply it as law in the ordinary course of adjudication. Although the Chief Justice’s con- tribution to this enterprise far exceeded his proportional share as a single Justice, scholarship has long since exploded the myth of a he- roic Marshall who dominated the Supreme Court by the sheer force of his individual genius and will. Such a myth ignores the historical real- ity that Marshall’s success as Chief Justice resulted from the interplay between his exceptional leadership abilities and the peculiar circum- stances of time and place that allowed those abilities to flourish and have effect. “A great man,” Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said, “represents a great ganglion in the nerves of society, or, to vary the figure, a strategic point in the campaign of history, and part of his greatness consists in his being there.”1 Marshall, in short, was the right man in the right place at the right time.
    [Show full text]
  • Trickle Down” Constitutional Interpretation: Should Federal Limits on Legislative Conferral of Standing Be Imported Into State Constitutional Law?
    \\server05\productn\C\COL\108-4\COL402.txt unknown Seq: 1 5-MAY-08 14:58 NOTES “TRICKLE DOWN” CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION: SHOULD FEDERAL LIMITS ON LEGISLATIVE CONFERRAL OF STANDING BE IMPORTED INTO STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW? James W. Doggett At both the federal and state levels of government, Congress and state legislatures have passed statutes conferring standing onto citizens to litigate in the public interest. These statutes allow citizens to assist in law enforce- ment and to hold the executive branch accountable to its statutory obliga- tions. However, these conferrals of standing can be constitutionally contro- versial. At the federal level, the Supreme Court has ruled that statutory conferrals may sometimes impermissibly direct the federal courts to hear cases outside of the judicial power vested by Article III of the Federal Constitution. The Court has also hinted that such conferrals may infringe on the Presi- dent’s authority over law enforcement. Since many state constitutions di- verge from the Federal Constitution in important respects, one might expect state courts to reject the federal courts’ restrictions on legislative conferrals of standing. However, some state courts have imported the federal approach into their state constitutional law. This Note argues that state courts should be hesitant to restrict legislative conferrals of standing. Many state constitu- tions provide for checks on executive authority that do not exist at the federal level: The state executive is usually divided into separately elected, indepen- dent offices. Also, the justiciability rules that limit the role of state courts are typically looser than those restraining the federal courts. Within this context, legislative conferrals of standing—which allow citizens to check and supple- ment executive power—should frequently be uncontroversial at the state level.
    [Show full text]