Dewhurst v. Coulthard | |
---|---|
Decided February, 1799 | |
Full case name | John Dewhurst v. Isaac Coulthard |
Citations | 3 U.S. 409 ( more ) |
Case history | |
Prior | Circuit Court of the N.Y. District |
Holding | |
Motion denied, held that the Court could not hear a case that was not brought before it by the regular process of law. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Per curiam |
Dewhurst v. Coulthard, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 409 (1799), was a United States Supreme Court case that initiated with a civil suit brought by Isaac Coulthard (owner of Coulthard's Brewery) against John Dewhurst which reached the Court by a convoluted process. The Court refused to hear the case: "This court will not take cognizance of any suit, or controversy not brought before them by regular process of law." [1]
The Eleventh Amendment is an amendment to the United States Constitution which was passed by Congress on March 4, 1794, and ratified by the states on February 7, 1795. The Eleventh Amendment restricts the ability of individuals to bring suit against states in federal court.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), is considered the first United States Supreme Court case of significance and impact. Since the case was argued prior to the formal pronouncement of judicial review by Marbury v. Madison (1803), there was little available legal precedent. The Court in a 4–1 decision ruled in favor of Alexander Chisholm, executor of an estate of a citizen of South Carolina, holding that Article III, Section 2 grants federal courts jurisdiction in cases between a state and a citizen of another state wherein the state is the defendant.
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld the power of Congress to extend copyright protection to photography.
Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court delineated the authority of United States federal courts to hear certain kinds of cases under the Case or Controversy Clause of the United States Constitution.
New York v. Connecticut, 4 U.S. 1 (1799), was a lawsuit heard by the Supreme Court of the United States between the State of New York against the State of Connecticut in 1799 that arose from a land dispute between private parties. The case was the first case in which the Supreme Court exercised its original jurisdiction under Article III of the United States Constitution to hear controversies between two states.
Hayburn's Case, 2 U.S. 409 (1792), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States was invited to rule on whether certain non-judicial duties could be assigned by Congress to the federal circuit courts in their official capacity. This was the first time that the Supreme Court addressed the issue of justiciability. Congress eventually reassigned the duties in question, and the Supreme Court never gave judgment in this case.
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a process claim directed to a numerical algorithm, as such, was not patentable because "the patent would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself." That would be tantamount to allowing a patent on an abstract idea, contrary to precedent dating back to the middle of the 19th century. The ruling stated "Direct attempts to patent programs have been rejected [and] indirect attempts to obtain patents and avoid the rejection ... have confused the issue further and should not be permitted." The case was argued on October 16, 1972, and was decided November 20, 1972.
This is a list of cases reported in volume 2 U.S. of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States from 1791 to 1793. Case reports from other federal and state tribunals also appear in 2 U.S..
This is a list of cases reported in volume 3 U.S. of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States from 1794 to 1799. Case reports from other tribunals also appear in 3 U.S..
This is a list of cases reported in volume 4 U.S. of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1799 and 1800. Case reports from other tribunals also appear in 4 U.S..
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court case in which district attorneys or prosecutors were found to have full immunity from civil suits resulting from their government duties.
Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case involving a challenge to Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act of 1982.
Bingham v. Cabot, 3 U.S. 382 (1798), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Cabot family, a wealthy Yankee shipping family from New England. It was the second such case following the 1795 Bingham v. Cabot case. In the case the Court held that in diversity suits in federal courts, a party must allege appropriate citizenship and not simply residence, otherwise it may be stricken from the docket.
Lindsey v. Miller, 3 U.S. 411 (1799), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that: "The fact that the land demanded in a suit was granted by and is claimed under a State, does not make the State a party to the suit, within the meaning of the second section of the third article of the constitution. Nor does an issue upon the point whether the land demanded is within the limits of the State.
Sims's Lessee v. Irvine, 3 U.S. 425 (1799), is an early United States Supreme Court case about conflicting land claims. General William Irvine had been granted Montour's Island by Pennsylvania for his service in the American Revolutionary War, but the island was also claimed by Charles Simms of Virginia. The Court unanimously found in favor of Simms, who had the earlier claim.
Brown v. Van Braam, 3 U.S. 344 (1797), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that: "Under the practice of the courts of Rhode Island, as adopted by the judiciary act, the entry of a default, after a plea of the general issue, no similar being on the record, does not operate a discontinuance, and a judgment on the default is valid. Under the same practice the court may assess the damages in an action of assumpsit on a foreign bill payable in pounds sterling. Interest on affirmance is to be calculated on the aggregate sum of principal and interest in the judgment below, to the time of affirmance, but no further.."
Clerke v. Harwood, 3 U.S. 342 (1797), was a United States Supreme Court case that followed the court's decision in Ware v. Hylton, concerning debts owed to British subjects. In the Ware case, the Supreme Court had reversed a decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, and restored the decision of a Maryland trial court.
Hazlehurst v. United States, 4 U.S. 6 (1799), was a 1799 decision of the United States Supreme Court asserting that the appellants' failures to appear in court regarding their writs of error resulted in the Court issuing a orders of non prosequitur. The case was a federal case from South Carolina disputing their written seal on a bond which was purportedly improper because a wax seal was required.
The Old Brewery was the name given to Coulthard's Brewery after which it was consolidated within the city limits as the neighborhood of the Five Points becoming a tenement rookery following the economic depression of the Panic of 1837.
United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409 (1941), is the fourth and final decision by the United States Supreme Court in a long battle between the Secretary of Agriculture and market agencies on the reasonable rates to be rendered for services. The Court held that, under the Packers and Stockyards Act, the Secretary of Agriculture had the authority and he properly determined the reasonable rates for services rendered by market agencies.