Today in Supreme Court History: March 17, 1777

3/17/1777: Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney's birthday.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Patton v. Brady, 184 U.S. 608 (decided March 17, 1902): upholding extra tax on already taxed goods (on manufactured tobacco under War Revenue Act of 1898, Spanish-American War)

United States v. Florida, 420 U.S. 531 (decided March 17, 1975): Submerged Lands Act of 1953 supersedes Florida’s 1868 State Constitution insofar as setting seaward boundaries

First Nat’l Bank of Columbus, O. v. Louisiana Highway Comm’n, 264 U.S. 308 (decided March 17, 1924): jurisdictional minimum for diversity (then $3,000) not met where plaintiff alleged loss of land that would have been worth more than that if government had routed highway correctly

Tank Truck Rentals, Inc. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 356 U.S. 30 (decided March 17, 1958): trucker can’t deduct fines for innocent (as opposed to willful) weight violations for income tax purposes

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Remund, 330 U.S. 539 (decided March 17, 1947): Farm Credit Administration is “United States” under 31 U.S.C. §191 (now 31 U.S.C. §3713) and therefore unpaid debt due it by decedent takes priority in probate

Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co. v. Stevens, 312 U.S. 563 (decided March 17, 1941): Removal did not used to be self-executing; the state court had to order it, and one could appeal the order (in state court of course). Or one could just go to federal court. This case shows the mess that resulted, and set rules as to what proceedings were valid when the dust settled.

Staten Island Rapid Transit Ry. Co. v. Phoenix Indem. Co., 281 U.S. 98 (decided March 17, 1930): This New York case is an example of the rarely-used (and to my mind under-used) “statement of agreed facts” (now CPLR R. 3222), which allows one to bring a suit in the first instance in the Appellate Division. Here, the Court upholds a statute allowing an insurer to recoup worker’s compensation benefits after a wrongful death suit settled.

FTC v. American Tobacco Co., 264 U.S. 298 (decided March 17, 1924): tobacco company did not have to comply with FTC investigation authorized by Senate; statute allowed FTC to investigate only if antitrust laws alleged to be violated (and none were alleged here)

South Dakota v. Collins, 249 U.S. 220 (decided March 17, 1919): An example of a state suing an individual directly in the Supreme Court under the Court’s original jurisdiction. Here, the state treasurer pocketed interest on the state’s bank accounts. It’s amazing, that he thought he could get away with it. He didn’t.

Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (decided March 17, 1884): posed photo is copyrightable (this was the famous photo of Oscar Wilde, https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/oscar-wilde-no-18)

[John F. Carr]

On the truck case, America is still conflicted over the nature of traffic offenses. We refuse to get rid of them and we refuse to treat them as real crimes. Parking tickets are so much a cost of doing business that the big delivery companies have negotiated deals with cities to pay in bulk for the convenience of both parties. If parking violations were a real problem instead of a revenue source the delivery companies would be run out of town. (The alternative is reducing resident parking to make room for trucks, a potential political third rail.) Pennsylvania agreed with the trucking companies that overweight fines were a revenue source and not a problem to be solved. The opinion notes that the company had agreed to reimburse drivers for breaking the law. I know somebody who made the same offer decades later. An oversize truck needed a special permit. It was not possible to comply with the permit requirements of both jurisdictions the truck had to drive through, only one or the other. The customer told the driver he would pay the fine if the truck got caught.

[John F. Carr]

Why did South Dakota go to the Supreme Court to sue Collins? The opinion does not even give his full name. I was able to learn his initials, C. B. Collins, from the Internet.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Possibly as a state employee in state court he would have had some kind of sovereign immunity defense or other complication?

[Dilan Esper]

Burrow Giles is part of a long line of copyright cases involving whether new forms of expression are copyrightable (see also cases about piano rolls, computer code, and genetic engineering).

We are going to see another round of these now that the AI bots are creating interesting prose.

[Cory C.]

I hope he’s enjoying hell.

[John F. Carr]

Devil: "Welcome to Hell, Mr. Taney. Here is your room. Here is your slave."

Taney: "She's... she's... beautiful! I thought you said I was in hell."

Devil: "This is her hell, not yours."

(A variant of an old joke.)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don't know where Taney is now, but there's another Hell joke -

New Soul: "OK, so they're up to their necks in boiling mud, but at least they're allowed to enjoy some coffee."

Demon: "OK, coffee break is over, back to standing on your heads!"

[Frank Drackman]

I’d hold off judgement on that until I don’t know, Judgement day?? But heck, I’ll play, Harry Blackmun doesn’t go to Hell, but gets reincarnated, only he gets aborted every single time, but hey, it doesn’t hurt because feti don’t feel pain!!!! Wow, that could be a Twilight Zone plot, sort of "An Occurence at Owl Creek Bridge”

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

There's a place in hell for those who think they know who's in hell (and it's all made up superstition anyway, just ask Reverend Sandusky)
So wow, you're so great because you don't own any slaves, I don't either, but in 18th Century Amurica owning a slave was like owning a Washing Machine, a Dryer, a Car, do you have any of those?? In 200 years our Terminator Overlords will talk (In "Machine" language, get it?) about how E-ville 21st Century Humans were, forcing machines to do the heavy work (ever seen what happens to old cars? it's not pretty)

Frank

[Drbusybody]

It wasn't pronounced TAY-ney. It was TANN-ney.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I was told it was TAW-ny.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You were told correctly, capt.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Re South Dakota v. Collins - surely the Supreme Court declined to take jurisdiction of this case, leaving it to a district court to determine?

/sarc