Today in Supreme Court History: February 8, 1941

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

Justice Willis Van Devanter

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Something wrong today. My comment won't post.

[David Nieporent]

Every so often there's something in a comment that triggers a hidden filter, and Reason just eats the comment rather than posting it. It's never obvious what is causing the problem, but you simply have to reword the comment to hope to get rid of the trigger.

[Magister]

Apparently the juxtaposition of the word purse with the word net; see my comment lower down.

Edit: but listing the two words separately is apparently OK.

[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 recorded conversations as to gambling) (though never explicitly overruled this case can’t still be good law)

[Dilan Esper]

And it's relevant to ask what the 1983 remedy would have even looked like pre-Monroe v. Pape.

[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 void 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).

[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

[Dan Schiavetta]

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

[Dan Schiavetta]

for some reason will post all five cases I had for today except C.J. Hendry Co. v. Moore, 318 U.S. 133 (1943)

[Magister]

You were unable to post that same case summary in 2023. Looking at the description at captcrisis' web page, I wonder if Reason is interpreting something as spam. This comment was rejected when I included the two quoted words from that summary, which was otherwise:

California courts could affirm seizure of “***** ***” (absurdly large net which was nuisance to other fishers) in navigable waters; did not fall within federal courts’ exclusive admiralty jurisdiction because seizure is a common law remedy (preserved by the Jones Act “saving to suitors” clause, 28 U.S.C. §1333)

[Magister]

So just the two quoted words replaced with ***** *** triggered the system to reject the comment. (I included just the quoted words in the first version of my comment, which was rejected.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks for the explanation -- which seems correct.

Also glad to see someone actually visited my site! I should put some time into snazzying it up.

[Commenter_XY]

Next year, the post February 8 should read:

Today in Supreme Court History: February 8, 2023: Trump v Anderson argued

[The Margrave of Azilia]

He was passed out most of the time from drinking confiscated bootleg whiskey.