Cross v. United States (1871)

Last updated
Cross v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued October 31, 1872
Decided November 11, 1872
Full case nameAlexander Cross v. United States
Citations 81 U.S. 479 ( more )
14 Wall. 479; 20 L. Ed. 721; 1871 U.S. LEXIS 1013; 1871 WL 14753
Prior history Appeal from the Court of Claims
Questions presented
What is the proper construction of 13 Stat. 591 of July 2d, 1864?
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 opinions
Majority Davis, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
13 Stat. 591

Cross v. United States, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 479 (1871), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the principle of res judicata did not apply to Congressional reference cases. This was because Congress' intent in referring the case to the Court of Claims was to waive the defense of time bar for the entire controversy and that such intent could not be interpreted narrowly to prevent full recovery.

Supreme Court of the United States Highest court in the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. Established pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution in 1789, it has original jurisdiction over a small range of cases, such as suits between two or more states, and those involving ambassadors. It also has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal court and state court cases that involve a point of federal constitutional or statutory law. The Court has the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution or an executive act for being unlawful. However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The Court may decide cases having political overtones, but it has ruled that it does not have power to decide nonjusticiable political questions. Each year it agrees to hear about 100–150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review.

Res judicata (RJ) or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter [already] judged", and refers to either of two concepts: in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar continued litigation of a case on same issues between the same parties. In this latter usage, the term is synonymous with "issue preclusion".

The Court of Claims was a federal court that heard claims against the United States government. It was established in 1855, renamed in 1948 to the United States Court of Claims, and abolished in 1982. Then, its jurisdiction was assumed by the newly created United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and United States Claims Court, which was later renamed the Court of Federal Claims.

Contents

Background

In 1851, Daniel Saffarans leased a warehouse in San Francisco to the United States government for ten years. As part of the construction of the warehouse, Alexander Cross, purchased the property and the lease contract with the government. After occupying the warehouse for three years, the Secretary of the Treasury terminated the lease, citing the informal nature of the assignment of the contract by Saffarans to Cross. [1] In 1856, Cross sued the United States in the Court of Claims for the delinquent installment payments, however the government prevailed by showing that the informal nature of the assignment of the lease was defective and therefore insufficient for Cross to maintain a claim. The decision of the court was sent to Congress, which in 1864 passed 13 Stat. 591. This law permitted Cross to re-file his claim against the government and waived the defense of improper assignment as a bar to recovery.

San Francisco Consolidated city-county in California, United States

San Francisco, officially the City and County of San Francisco, is the cultural, commercial, and financial center of Northern California. San Francisco is the 13th-most populous city in the United States, and the fourth-most populous in California, with 884,363 residents as of 2017. It covers an area of about 46.89 square miles (121.4 km2), mostly at the north end of the San Francisco Peninsula in the San Francisco Bay Area, making it the second-most densely populated large US city, and the fifth-most densely populated U.S. county, behind only four of the five New York City boroughs. San Francisco is also part of the fifth-most populous primary statistical area in the United States, the San Jose–San Francisco–Oakland, CA Combined Statistical Area.

United States Secretary of the Treasury Government position

The Secretary of the Treasury is the head of the United States Department of the Treasury which is concerned with financial and monetary matters, and, until 2003, also included several federal law enforcement agencies. This position in the federal government of the United States is analogous to the Minister of Finance in many other countries. The Secretary of the Treasury is a member of the President's Cabinet, and is nominated by the President of the United States. Nominees for Secretary of the Treasury undergo a confirmation hearing before the United States Senate Committee on Finance before being voted on by the United States Senate.

Cross refiled the suit and prevailed against the government. However, he had only sued for three of the additional years of rents, so two years after prevailing against the government, he filed a new suit for the remaining $69,515 of the claim. The government cited that the waiver of defense by Congress was only effective for the first refiling and that as the amount was known to him at that time, he should be prevented from filing the additional suit. [2] This bar is commonly known as res judicata in that it prevents the plaintiff from refiling on a claim if he could have brought the claim in an earlier suit.

Opinion of the Court

In its decision, the Court stated that Congress' intent in passing the 1864 Act was to permit him to recover for the entire controversy. As there was no limiting language in the act that would prohibit him from refiling, the Court would not read the statute to permit only partial recovery. Therefore, the Court reversed the dismissal by the Court of Claims and remanded the case to them with instructions to enter a judgment for the remaining $69,515. [2]

Subsequent developments

This opinion established the principle that Congressional statutes providing remedial action should be construed liberally toward the aim of Congress' intent in passing the statute. [3] It also articulated the principle that if an installment payment was not overdue at the time a suit was commenced, it was not time barred from being brought in a later suit. [4] [5] However, while such statutes are construed liberally, in Hartiens v. U.S. , the Court of Claims narrowed the meaning of Cross, by limiting its action of re-reference to looking at false or fraudulent information from the first trial and not re-hearing the entire controversy. [6] Further, in the later Paul v. U.S. matter, the court confirmed that the principles of res judicata and stare decisis do not apply in Congressional reference cases. [7]

Related Research Articles

Collateral estoppel (CE), known in modern terminology as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. One summary is that, "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision ... preclude[s] relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case". The rationale behind issue preclusion is the prevention of legal harassment and the prevention of overuse or abuse of judicial resources.

Nonintercourse Act

The Nonintercourse Act is the collective name given to six statutes passed by the Congress in 1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834 to set Amerindian boundaries of reservations. The various Acts also regulate commerce between Americans and Native Americans. The most notable provisions of the Act regulate the inalienability of aboriginal title in the United States, a continuing source of litigation for almost 200 years. The prohibition on purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government has its origins in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783.

Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case which interpreted Congressional silence in the face of earlier interpretations of similar laws to determine that Title IX of the Higher Education Act provides an implied cause of action.

Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), is a First Amendment case decided in the Supreme Court of the United States. Three defendants were convicted in two separate cases of violating a Virginia statute against cross burning. In this case, the Court struck down that statute to the extent that it considered cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate. Such a provision, the Court argued, blurs the distinction between proscribable "threats of intimidation" and the Ku Klux Klan's protected "messages of shared ideology." However, cross-burning can be a criminal offense if the intent to intimidate is proven.

Tucker Act

The Tucker Act is a federal statute of the United States by which the United States government has waived its sovereign immunity with respect to certain lawsuits.

Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), combined three pending federal cases for a hearing in certiorari in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and not on furlough and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. The opinion is an extension of the English common-law concept of sovereign immunity.

Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the Qualifications of Members Clause of Article I of the US Constitution is an exclusive list of qualifications of members of the House of Representatives, which may exclude a duly-elected member for only those reasons enumerated in that clause.

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court decision involving the original jurisdiction of the federal district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

California Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272 (1987), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court about whether a state may require employers to provide greater pregnancy benefits than required by federal law, as well as the ability to require pregnancy benefits to women without similar benefits to men. The court held that The California Fair Employment and Housing Act §12945(b)(2), which requires employers to provide leave and reinstatement to employees disabled by pregnancy, is consistent with federal law.

United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U.S. 85 (1916), was a landmark Supreme Court decision applying the common law concept of res judicata to criminal law cases.

Sovereign immunity in the United States

In United States law, the federal government as well as state and tribal governments generally enjoy sovereign immunity, also known as governmental immunity, from lawsuits. Local governments in most jurisdictions enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides foreign governments, including state-owned companies, with a related form of immunity—state immunity—that shields them from lawsuits except in relation to certain actions relating to commercial activity in the United States. The principle of sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from the English common law legal maxim rex non potest peccare, meaning "the king can do no wrong." In some situations, sovereign immunity may be waived by law.

Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009

The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, or FERA, Pub.L. 111–21, S. 386, 123 Stat. 1617, enacted May 20, 2009, is a public law in the United States enacted in 2009. The law enhanced criminal enforcement of federal fraud laws, especially regarding financial institutions, mortgage fraud, and securities fraud or commodities fraud.

English v. General Electric, 496 U.S. 72 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is not pre-empted by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.

<i>Paul v. United States</i>

Paul v. United States, 20 Cl.Ct. 236 (1990), was a Congressional reference case brought before the United States Claims Court as a result of Senate Resolution 187 of the 100th Congress' 1st Session in 1988, which referred the proposed private bill, S. 966 to the court for a report on whether Frederick Paul's claim was a legal, equitable, or gratuitous claim and what amount was legally or equitably due him by the United States. Paul claimed he was due additional money from the government for his work with the native Inuit of Alaska that led to the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971 and the creation of the modern borough system of local government in Alaska.

Aboriginal title in the United States

The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title. Native American tribes and nations establish aboriginal title by actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a "long time." Individuals may also establish aboriginal title, if their ancestors held title as individuals. Unlike other jurisdictions, the content of aboriginal title is not limited to historical or traditional land uses. Aboriginal title may not be alienated, except to the federal government or with the approval of Congress. Aboriginal title is distinct from the lands Native Americans own in fee simple and occupy under federal trust.

County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State, 470 U.S. 226 (1985), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning aboriginal title in the United States. The case, sometimes referred to as Oneida II, was "the first Indian land claim case won on the basis of the Nonintercourse Act."

Aboriginal land title in New Mexico is unique among aboriginal title in the United States. Congressional legislation was passed to define such title after the United States acquired this territory following war with Mexico (1846-1848. But, the Supreme Court of the New Mexico Territory and the United States Supreme Court held that the Nonintercourse Act did not restrict the alienability of Pueblo lands.

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 567 U.S. 182 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the United States government, when it enters into a contract with a Native American (Indian) tribe for services, must pay contracts in full, even if congress has not appropriated enough money to pay all tribal contractors. The case was litigated over a period of 22 years, beginning in 1990, until it was decided in 2012.

References

  1. ↑ Cross v. United States , 81 U.S. (14 Wall. ) 479, 481 (1871).
  2. 1 2 Cross v. United States, 81 U.S. at 484.
  3. ↑ Hubbell v. U.S., 15 Ct.Cl. 546 (1879).
  4. ↑ Goodwin v. Cabot Amusement Co., 149 A. 574, 579, 129 Me. 36 (1930)
  5. ↑ Luce v. Minard, 88 A. 728, 728, 87 Vt. 177 (1913).
  6. ↑ Hartiens v. U.S., 42 Ct.Cl. 42, 1906 WL 888 (1906).
  7. ↑ Paul v. United States, 20 Cl.Ct. 236, 266 (1990).
<i>United States Reports</i> official record of the rulings, orders, case tables, and other proceedings of the Supreme Court of the United States

The United States Reports are the official record of the rulings, orders, case tables, in alphabetical order both by the name of the petitioner and by the name of the respondent, and other proceedings of the Supreme Court of the United States. United States Reports, once printed and bound, are the final version of court opinions and cannot be changed. Opinions of the court in each case are prepended with a headnote prepared by the Reporter of Decisions, and any concurring or dissenting opinions are published sequentially. The Court's Publication Office oversees the binding and publication of the volumes of United States Reports, although the actual printing, binding, and publication are performed by private firms under contract with the United States Government Publishing Office.

Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States is the official charged with editing and publishing the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, both when announced and when they are published in permanent bound volumes of the United States Reports. The Reporter of Decisions is responsible for only the contents of the United States Reports issued by the Government Printing Office, first in preliminary prints and later in the final bound volumes. The Reporter is not responsible for the editorial content of unofficial reports of the Court's decisions, such as the privately published Supreme Court Reporter or Lawyers' Edition.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.