Today in Supreme Court History: February 8, 1941

2/8/1941: Justice Willis Van Devanter dies.

Justice Willis Van Devanter

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Doesn't look like comments are working today!

[Dan Schiavetta]

At least, it won't post my case summaries.

[Michael P]

That’s unfortunate. Maybe it’s tripping some spam filter? Would you be willing to try posting one per comment, or otherwise break it up? (If it’s running into a spam filter, that might reveal which part is problematic, and let the rest through.)

... Never mind, I see you had the same idea already.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe Blackman blackballed you.

[Bob from Ohio]

"At least, it won’t post my case summaries."

You put the comment bot to sleep.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Irvine v. California, 347 U.S. 128 (decided February 8, 1953): state (though not federal government) can use illegal means to obtain evidence; defendant still has remedy of suing officers under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (police had locksmith make extra key for door, installed hidden microphone, ran wire through roof, and convicted defendant of gambling based on conversations heard) (though never explicitly overruled this case can’t still be good law)

[Dilan Esper]

The combination of Mapp v. Ohio and Katz overturned it sub silentio.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks! I knew the answer was pretty simple!

[Dan Schiavetta]

Partmar Corp. v. Paramount Pictures Theatres Corp., 347 U.S. 89 (decided February 8, 1954): Attorney General wins Sherman Act antitrust case against distributor/theater owner/franchisor (Paramount). Paramount sues the theater operator/tenant/franchisee (Partmar) to invalide the lease due to illegality and to evict. Partmar counterclaims for conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws. Then the AG's victory gets overturned on appeal, 334 U.S. 131, the Court holding that the franchise agreement was not per se illegal. So in arguing for eviction Paramount now has to argue that its conduct, notwithstanding the reversal, still violated antitrust, and Partmar argues that even if no antitrust violation there was still a conspiracy in intrastate commerce (outside the scope of the Sherman Act) and that no attempt to disprove conspiracy was made in the AG suit. Still with me? The trial court holds both that there was no reason to terminate the lease and also, as a matter of law, no conspiracy. Partmar appeals as to the dismissal of the counterclaims without a trial; it still wanted disgorgement of excessive rents, etc. The Court here holds that the finding as to the lease being legal (which was not appealed) necessarily included a finding of no conspiracy, and therefore that the counterclaims are precluded. But as this article points out, it's not clear that the elements of the counterclaims had been fully and fairly litigated. "Collateral Estoppel and the Right to Appeal", 7 Stanford L.Rev. 114 - 120 (1954).

[John F. Carr]

I feel like this case would have been more fun under the old rules of civil procedure with demurrers and sur-replies and exceptions. It could still be going on today.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Antitrust seems like such a gold mine for attorneys. Big clients who don’t mind paying high fees, and cases that go on forever.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Looks like it will let me post one case at a time though, without formatting.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Williams v. Peyton's Lessee, 17 U.S. 77 (decided February 8, 1819): invalidating tax sale of property because purchaser could not show that it had been properly advertised

Owens v. Hanney, 13 U.S. 180 (decided February 8, 1815): breakout of war does not invalidate judgment citizen of enemy has already obtained against a United States citizen

[Michael P]

Today in history, Justice Willis Van Devanter died. In recognition of his impact on the Court, his seat on the Court was never filled, and his robes were retired and hung on the antechamber wall.

(Not really, of course; Hugo Black took the seat on August 19, 1937.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Won't let me post the last case. For the record, it would have been C.J. Hendry Co. v. Moore, 1943.

[Syd Henderson]

A case so controversial it could not be posted at the Volokh Conspiracy.

[Dan Schiavetta]

There are no "suspicious" words in my summary. I don't know what happened.

[John F. Carr]

Although the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over most in rem cases against vessels, it was standard practice to allow the state as sovereign to seek forfeiture in rem in its own courts so we’ll allow it.

The dissent makes a good point: “Today’s in rem action is against a fishnet used in patently illegal fashion; tomorrow’s may be an action against a tramp-steamer or ocean liner which violates a harbor regulation or otherwise offends against the police regulations of a state or municipality.”

Mayor Giuliani once proposed seizing cars that exceeded the speed limit in New York City. He was betting that he could tune the program so it affected people without political power and not piss off the voters. His successor decided it was better to tax speeders instead. The speed camera program in NYC, like most in the USA, does not put points on licenses and you can speed as often as the owner of the car can afford. Only powerless poor people are seriously inconvenienced.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks for looking up that case and your comment.

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, bad day for the Judge

[Dan Schiavetta]

large net which was nuisance to other fishers) in navigable waters;

[Dan Schiavetta]

did not fall within federal courts' exclusive admiralty jurisdiction

[Dan Schiavetta]

because seizure is a common law remedy (Jones Act "saving to suitors")

[Dan Schiavetta]

sorry for these fragments -- trying to find out why my comment on this case got blocked

it's a mystery

[Dan Schiavetta]

seizure of

[Dan Schiavetta]

I use a pure text editor (notepad) so it's not like some hidden code is the culprit