Today in Supreme Court History: April 13, 1896

4/13/1896: Plessy v. Ferguson argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52 (decided April 13, 1942): city could ban public distribution of handbills which argued political issue as a pretext but really were advertising (exhibiting submarine for profit) (overruled by Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 1976)

Smith v. Springdale Amusement Park, 283 U.S. 121 (decided April 13, 1931): mechanical arm running along dog track with lure was not patentable (pretty obvious, I think -- any dog will chase any arm holding what it thinks is food -- in fact a lot of humans are like that, with money)

Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Anderson, 233 U.S. 325 (decided April 13, 1914): not a denial of Equal Protection to make railroads doubly liable, with attorney's fees, for killing livestock if they refuse to pay for loss

Doullut & Williams Co. v. United States, 268 U.S. 33 (decided April 13, 1925): damage to pilings on lower Mississippi caused by vessel is within admiralty jurisdiction

Hart v. Virginia, 298 U.S. 34 (decided April 13, 1936): no federal issue and therefore no habeas jurisdiction where state law self-defense defense to murder charge had been rejected by jury

Herron v. Southern Pacific Co., 283 U.S. 91 (decided April 13, 1931): in case brought by man whose car collided with a train, federal court can ignore state constitution provision that contributory negligence is always a question for the jury and direct verdict for defendant (I don't think his holding survives Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, particularly when you read the Court's rationale, which calls contributory negligence a rule of procedure)

Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U.S. 565 (decided April 13, 1896): can't contest de facto exclusion of blacks from state grand juries if it's not de jure (obviously this is no longer good law)

Montgomery v. United States, 162 U.S. 410 (decided April 13, 1896): conviction for stealing money from mails affirmed; not entitled to entrapment defense (letters containing money had been sent by postal inspectors to fictitious address with the hope that defendant would steal the money inside)

Amy v. Shelby County Taxing District, 114 U.S. 387 (decided April 13, 1885): state's decision to allow back taxes to be set off by other obligations did not impair its contracts with bond holders

Wilson v. Everett, 139 U.S. 616 (decided April 13, 1891): appeal pursued only for the purposes of delay (this was before the era of certiorari and the Court was required to hear most appeals), i.e., appellant knew Court had no power to review facts, would be met with sanctions

[John F. Carr]

The summary of the dog track case reminds me that the moving lure was a staple of the cartoons I watched growing up. I never got to see a dog race before Massachusetts voters banned dog racing.

[John F. Carr]

I see you found another blacks on grand juries case.

[Dan Schiavetta]

An early one. In those days I suppose they didn't consider "as applied" discrimination to be actionable.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Milominderbinder earned a Noble Prize for achievement in identifying error in Today In Supreme Court History with this comment:

1896, not 1869

As has become customary, Profs. Barnett and Blackman belatedly edited the published work without acknowledging the mistake or noting the change. (Does Blackman still try to claim he doesn't read comments?)

On the same day, captcrisis earned an honorary Noble Prize for establishing the official motto of Today In Supreme Court History:

“100 Supreme Court Cases Josh Blackman and Randy Barnett Should Really Bone Up On”

Carry on, "scholars."

[David Nieporent]

As has become customary, Profs. Barnett and Blackman belatedly edited the published work without acknowledging the mistake or noting the change.

Area Man Unfamiliar With Concept of Blogging.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

My sense is that mainstream academics customarily acknowledge error and note changes when a mistake has been published long enough to attract corrective responses.

Some Volokh Conspirators -- they tend to be the ones who exhibit more character and scholarly integrity -- do so.

The shittier ones do not.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thank you!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is not just Prof. Blackman's book.

Prof. Barnett is covered by part of the stain, too.