Baker v. Morton

Last updated

Baker v. Morton
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued March 24, 1871
Decided April 3, 1871
Full case nameAlexander H. Baker v. William S. Morton
Citations79 U.S. 150 ( more )
12 Wall. 150; 20 L. Ed. 262; 1870 U.S. LEXIS 1172
Court membership
Chief Justice
Salmon P. Chase
Associate Justices
Samuel Nelson  · Nathan Clifford
Noah H. Swayne  · Samuel F. Miller
David Davis  · Stephen J. Field
William Strong  · Joseph P. Bradley
Case opinion
MajorityClifford, joined by unanimous

Baker v. Morton, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 150 (1870), was the second of two land claim suits to come out of Omaha, Nebraska Territory, filed in September 1860, prior to statehood. [1] A claim jumper filed suit against local land barons to stake out a homestead in the area that was to become the city of Omaha. The case was important for establishing homesteaders' rights and ensuring that the future growth of Omaha would benefit everyone, not just wealthy landowners and speculators.

Contents

Details

The case of Alexander H. Baker v. William S. Morton was a case of an ill-gotten land claim. Baker was an early settler in the Omaha area who lived on 160 acres (0.65 km2) of land in an area of town then known as Orchard Hill, which is now in North Omaha. [2]

An adjoining 160-acre (0.65 km2) plot of land was owned by a man named Brown. The Omaha Claim Club did not recognize the men as legal residents for either of the plots and threatened the two men with death if they did not turn over the titles to the land. Baker and Brown conveyed their land titles in the face of potential harm. In 1860 Baker and Brown filed suits against the Club to get their titles back. The territorial court ruled against Baker, who appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court ruled that the property was obtained under duress and was to be reinstated to the rightful owner. [3] [4]

Legacy

Today this case is cited by legal experts as precedent in cases of contractual holdup to establish the illegal nature of the Omaha Claim Club's activities and subsequent activities that exhibit this form of collusion. [5]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.</i> 1994 copyright infringement lawsuit

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435, was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. sought to prevent Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple's Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. The court ruled that, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]...". In the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple alleging that Mac's GUI was heavily based on Xerox's. The district court dismissed Xerox's claims without addressing whether Apple's GUI infringed Xerox's. Apple lost all claims in the Microsoft suit except for the ruling that the trash can icon and folder icons from Hewlett-Packard's NewWave windows application were infringing. The lawsuit was filed in 1988 and lasted four years; the decision was affirmed on appeal in 1994, and Apple's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nebraska Supreme Court</span> Highest court in the State of Nebraska

The Nebraska Supreme Court is the highest court in the U.S. state of Nebraska. The court consists of a chief justice and six associate justices. Each justice is initially appointed by the governor of Nebraska; using the Missouri Plan, each justice is then subject to a retention vote for additional six-year terms. The six associate justices each represent a Supreme Court district; the chief justice is appointed at-large.

Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (1978), is a case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the civil procedure subject of ancillary jurisdiction.

Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972), is a Supreme Court of the United States case on the issue of standing under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court rejected a lawsuit by the Sierra Club seeking to block the development of a ski resort at Mineral King valley in the Sierra Nevada Mountains because the club had not alleged any injury.

The Omaha Claim Club, also called the Omaha Township Claim Association and the Omaha Land Company, was organized in 1854 for the purpose of "encouraging the building of a city" and protecting members' claims in the area platted for Omaha City in the Nebraska Territory. At its peak the club included "one or two hundred men", including several important pioneers in Omaha history. The Club included notable figures important to the early development of Omaha. It was disbanded after a ruling against their violent methods by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1860 in Baker v. Morton.

Claim clubs, also called actual settlers' associations or squatters' clubs, were a nineteenth-century phenomenon in the American West. Usually operating within a confined local jurisdiction, these pseudo-governmental entities sought to regulate land sales in places where there was little or no legal apparatus to deal with land-related quarrels of any size. Some claim clubs sought to protect squatters, while others defended early land owners. In the twentieth century, sociologists suggested that claim clubs were a pioneer adaptation of democratic bodies on the East Coast, including town halls.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Andrew Jackson Poppleton</span> American politician from Nebraska

Andrew Jackson Poppleton was a lawyer and politician in pioneer Omaha, Nebraska. Serving in a variety of roles over his lifetime, his name is present throughout many of the important events of early Omaha history.

Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 439 U.S. 299 (1978), is a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that state anti-usury laws regulating interest rates cannot be enforced against nationally chartered banks based in other states. Justice William Brennan wrote that it was clearly the intent of Congress when it passed the National Banking Act that nationally chartered banks would be subject only to federal regulation by the Comptroller of Currency and the laws of the state in which they were chartered, and that only Congress or the appropriate state legislature could pass the laws regulating them.

Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. 457 (1871), was an important case for its time in which the Supreme Court of the United States overruled Hepburn v. Griswold. In Knox v. Lee, the Court held that making paper money legal tender through the Legal Tender Act did not conflict with Article I of the United States Constitution.

Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in a land dispute, 25 U.S.C. § 194 applied only to individuals and not a state, that federal law governed the tribe's right to possession, but that state law was to be used in determining how that applied to the natural movement of a river's boundaries.

<i>Pennsylvania College Cases</i> 1871 United States Supreme Court case

The Pennsylvania College Cases, also known as Trustees of Jefferson College in Canonsburg v. Washington and Jefferson College, was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1871. Justice Nathan Clifford wrote the opinion, ruling in favor of Washington & Jefferson College.

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859, was a federal lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska and decided on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It challenged the federal constitutionality of Nebraska Initiative Measure 416, a 2000 ballot initiative that amended the Nebraska Constitution to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages, civil unions, and other same-sex relationships.

Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (1974), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning aboriginal title in the United States. The original suit in this matter was the first modern-day Native American land claim litigated in the federal court system rather than before the Indian Claims Commission. It was also the first to go to final judgement.

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–0 decision, held that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under federal common law, primarily because the Clean Air Act (CAA) delegates the management of carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Brought to court in July 2004 in the Southern District of New York, this was the first global warming case based on a public nuisance claim.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Nebraska</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the U.S. state of Nebraska may face some legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Nebraska, and same-sex marriage has been recognized since June 2015 as a result of Obergefell v. Hodges. The state prohibits discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment and housing following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County and a subsequent decision of the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission. In addition, the state's largest city, Omaha, has enacted protections in public accommodations.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Nebraska since June 26, 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Following the court ruling, Attorney General Doug Peterson announced that the state of Nebraska would comply and recognize same-sex marriages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Domina</span> American lawyer and politician

David Alan Domina is an American lawyer and politician from Nebraska. A member of the Democratic Party, he was involved in a number of high-profile legal cases, including the impeachment of Nebraska Attorney General Paul L. Douglas in 1986, and that of University of Nebraska regent David Hergert in 2006. Beginning in 2012, he represented opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline in contesting a legislative measure relating to the use of eminent domain for the pipeline.

Ohio v. American Express Co., 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the nature of antitrust law in relationship to two-sided markets. The case specifically involves policies set by some credit card banks that prevented merchants from steering customers to use cards from other issuers with lower transaction fees, forcing merchants to pay higher transaction fees to the banks. While Visa and MasterCard settled with the United States Department of Justice in 2010, American Express defended its practice by arguing that the anti-steering policies benefited its cardholders, the higher transaction fees helping to maintain member services. While the Department of Justice and several states prevailed during a District Court trial in 2015 citing harm to the merchants, the Appeals Court reversed the District Court's ruling in 2016 by ruling that the plaintiffs had not shown harm to both sides of the two-side market, a novel test in antitrust law. This decision led to some of the states to appeal to the Supreme Court. The case was heard by the Court in February 2018.

Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), was decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that limited which claims of Fourth Amendment violations could be made by state prisoners in habeas corpus petitions in federal courts. Specifically, a claim that the exclusionary rule had been broken would be barred if state courts had already given it a full and fair hearing. The decision combined two cases that were argued before the Supreme Court on the same day with similar issues, one filed by Lloyd Powell and the other, titled Wolff v. Rice, filed by David Rice.

Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. 477 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the forgiveness of federal student loans by the Biden administration in 2022, challenged by multiple states. The Supreme Court's ruling was issued on June 30, 2023, ruling 6–3 that the Secretary of Education did not have the power to waive student loans under the HEROES Act.

References

  1. Three years earlier, the Court decided Brown v. Pierce, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 205 (1868), on substantially similar facts, in an appeal from the Supreme Court of Nebraska Territory. The State of Nebraska was admitted to the Union in February 1867.
  2. Baker v. Morton, 79 U.S. (12 Wall. ) 150, 150-59 (1870).
  3. Baumann, L.; Martin, C.; Simpson, S. (1990). Omaha's Historic Prospect Hill Cemetery. Omaha: Prospect Hill Cemetery Historical Development Foundation.
  4. The territorial court had ruled in favor of Brown in his case, and the Omaha Claim Club members appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court. The court in the Baker case acknowledged the similarity of the facts and findings in the Brown decision, and ruled accordingly.
  5. Shavell, Steven (2007). "Contractual Holdup and Legal Intervention". The Journal of Legal Studies. 36 (2): 325–354. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.333.6678 . doi:10.1086/511892.