List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 198

Last updated

Supreme Court of the United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 198
38°53′26″N77°00′16″W / 38.89056°N 77.00444°W / 38.89056; -77.00444
EstablishedMarch 4, 1789;234 years ago (1789-03-04)
Location Washington, D.C.
Coordinates 38°53′26″N77°00′16″W / 38.89056°N 77.00444°W / 38.89056; -77.00444
Composition methodPresidential nomination with Senate confirmation
Authorized by Constitution of the United States, Art. III, § 1
Judge term lengthlife tenure, subject to impeachment and removal
Number of positions9 (by statute)
Website supremecourt.gov

This is a list of cases reported in volume 198 of United States Reports , decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1905.

Contents

Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 198 U.S.

The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). [1] Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice).

When the cases in volume 198 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members:

PortraitJusticeOfficeHome StateSucceededDate confirmed by the Senate
(Vote)
Tenure on Supreme Court
Melville Weston Fuller Chief Justice 1908.jpg Melville Fuller Chief Justice Illinois Morrison Waite July 20, 1888
(41–20)
October 8, 1888

July 4, 1910
(Died)
JudgeJMHarlan.jpg John Marshall Harlan Associate Justice Kentucky David Davis November 29, 1877
(Acclamation)
December 10, 1877

October 14, 1911
(Died)
DavidBrewer.jpg David Josiah Brewer Associate Justice Kansas Stanley Matthews December 18, 1889
(53–11)
January 6, 1890

March 28, 1910
(Died)
Portrait of Henry Billings Brown.jpg Henry Billings Brown Associate Justice Michigan Samuel Freeman Miller December 29, 1890
(Acclamation)
January 5, 1891

May 28, 1906
(Retired)
Edward White, head-and-shoulders portrait, facing slightly left, 1905.jpg Edward Douglass White Associate Justice Louisiana Samuel Blatchford February 19, 1894
(Acclamation)
March 12, 1894

December 18, 1910
(Continued as chief justice)
Rufus Wheeler Peckham cph.3b30513.jpg Rufus W. Peckham Associate Justice New York Howell Edmunds Jackson December 9, 1895
(Acclamation)
January 6, 1896

October 24, 1909
(Died)
Justice McKenna.jpg Joseph McKenna Associate Justice California Stephen Johnson Field January 21, 1898
(Acclamation)
January 26, 1898

January 5, 1925
(Retired)
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr circa 1930-edit.jpg Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Associate Justice Massachusetts Horace Gray December 4, 1902
(Acclamation)
December 8, 1902

January 12, 1932
(Retired)
Justice William R. Day.jpg William R. Day Associate Justice Ohio George Shiras Jr. February 23, 1903
(Acclamation)
March 2, 1903

November 13, 1922
(Retired)

Notable Cases in 198 U.S.

Lochner v. New York

Lochner v. New York , 198 U.S. 45 (1905), is a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that a New York state law setting maximum working hours for bakers violated the bakers' right to freedom of contract under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The underlying case began in 1899 when Joseph Lochner, a German immigrant who owned a bakery in Utica, New York, was charged with violating New York's Bakeshop Act of 1895. The Bakeshop Act had made it a crime for New York bakeries to employ bakers for more than 10 hours per day or 60 hours per week. He was convicted and ultimately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. A majority of the Supreme Court held that the law violated the due process clause, stating that the law constituted an "unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of the individual to contract". Four dissenting justices rejected that view, and the dissent of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in particular, became one of the most famous opinions in US legal history. Holmes wrote:

"[A] constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire. It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States. General propositions do not decide concrete cases". (198 U.S. 75-76)

United States v. Ju Toy

In United States v. Ju Toy , 198 U.S. 253 (1905), the Supreme Court held that a citizen of the United States could be barred entry into the country based solely on an administrative decision, without routine recourse to the courts even on the factual question of citizenship. The Court determined that refusing entry at a port does not deny due process, and held that findings by immigration officials are conclusive and not subject to judicial review unless there is evidence of bias or negligence. This case marked a shift in the Court in respect to habeas corpus petitions and altered the judicial landscape for citizens applying for admission into the United States as well as for those facing deportation. The Court came to a different conclusion in 1922, that habeas corpus petitioners are entitled to a de novo judicial hearing to determine whether they are U.S. citizens ( Ng Fung Ho v. White ).

Citation style

Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region.

The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari.

Bluebook citation style is used for case names, citations, and jurisdictions.

List of cases in volume 198 U.S.

Case NamePage & yearOpinion of the CourtConcurring opinion(s)Dissenting opinion(s)Lower CourtDisposition
Benson v. Henkel 1 (1905) BrownDaynone C.C.S.D.N.Y. affirmed
Pabst B. Co. v. Crenshaw 17 (1905) WhitenoneBrown C.C.W.D. Mo. affirmed
Lochner v. New York 45 (1905) PeckhamnoneHarlan; Holmes Oneida Cnty. Ct. reversed
Beavers v. Haubert 77 (1905) McKennanonenone E.D.N.Y. affirmed
Humphrey v. Tatman 91 (1905) Holmesnonenone Mass. Super. Ct. reversed
Remington v. Central P.R.R. Co. 95 (1905) Holmesnonenone C.C.N.D.N.Y. affirmed
City of Covington v. First Nat'l Bank 100 (1905) Daynonenone C.C.E.D. Ky. affirmed
Bonin v. Gulf Co. 115 (1905) Fullernonenone 5th Cir. dismissed
Howe S. Co. v. Wyckoff, S. & B. 118 (1905) Fullernonenone 2d Cir. reversed
Steigleder v. McQuesten 141 (1905) Harlannonenone C.C.D. Wash. affirmed
Jaster v. Currie 144 (1905) Holmesnonenone Neb. reversed
Allen v. Arguimbau 149 (1905) Fullernonenone Fla. dismissed
Rodriguez v. United States 156 (1905) Harlannonenone D.P.R. affirmed
Dunbar v. Green 166 (1905) Brownnonenone Kan. reversed
In re Glaser 171 (1905) Fullernonenone C.C.E.D.N.Y. mandamus denied
Schlosser v. Hemphill 173 (1905) Fullernonenone Iowa dismissed
Wells Co. v. Gastonia C. Mfg. Co. 177 (1905) Harlannonenone 4th Cir. reversed
Riverdale C.M. v. Alabama G. Mfg. Co. 188 (1905) Brewernonenone 5th Cir. affirmed
Holden v. Stratton 202 (1905) Whitenonenone 9th Cir. reversed
Harris v. Balk 215 (1905) Peckhamnonenone N.C. reversed
Harley v. United States 229 (1905) McKennanonenone Ct. Cl. affirmed
Chicago Bd. Trade v. Christie G. & S. Co. 236 (1905) Holmesnonenone 8th Cir. multiple
United States v. Ju Toy 253 (1905) HolmesnoneBrewer 9th Cir. certification
First Nat'l Bank v. Chicago T. & T. Co. 280 (1905) Fullernonenone 7th Cir. reversed
Empire State et al. Co. v. Hanley 292 (1905) Fullernonenone 9th Cir. dismissed
Old Dominion S.S. Co. v. Virginia 299 (1905) Brewernonenone Va. affirmed
Thompson v. Darden 310 (1905) Whitenonenone Va. affirmed
Harding v. Harding 317 (1905) Whitenonenone Cal. reversed
Delaware et al. R.R. Co. v. Pennsylvania 341 (1905) Peckhamnonenone Pa. reversed
Clark v. Nash 361 (1905) Peckhamnonenone Utah affirmed
United States v. Winans 371 (1905) McKennanonenone C.C.D. Wash. reversed
Chicago et al. Ry. Co. v. United States 385 (1905) McKennanonenone Ct. Cl. affirmed
Birrell v. New York & H.R.R. Co. 390 (1905) McKennanonenone N.Y. Sup. Ct. reversed
Savannah et al. Ry. v. City of Savannah 392 (1905) Holmesnonenone Ga. affirmed
Cimiotti U. Co. v. American F.R. Co. 399 (1905) Daynonenone 3d Cir. affirmed
Leonard v. Vicksburg et al. R.R. Co. 416 (1905) Fullernonenone La. dismissed
Chicago Bd. Trade v. Hammond E. Co. 424 (1905) Brownnonenone C.C.N.D. Ill. reversed
Lavagnino v. Uhlig 443 (1905) Whitenonenone Utah affirmed
Cunnius v. Reading Sch. Dist. 458 (1905) Whitenonenone Pa. affirmed
Kendall v. American A.L. Co. 477 (1905) Peckhamnonenone C.C.S.D.N.Y. affirmed
Louisville & N.R.R. Co. v. West C.N.S. Co. 483 (1905) Peckhamnonenone 5th Cir. reversed
Ah Sin v. Wittman 500 (1905) McKennanonenone Cal. Super. Ct. affirmed
Knights of Pythias v. Meyer 508 (1905) McKennanonenone N.Y. Sup. Ct. affirmed
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Dashiell 521 (1905) McKennanonenone 5th Cir. affirmed
Union T. Co. v. Wilson 530 (1905) Holmesnonenone 7th Cir. certification
Whitney v. Wenman 539 (1905) Daynonenone S.D.N.Y. reversed
Van Reed v. People's Nat'l Bank 554 (1905) Daynonenone N.Y. affirmed
Great et al. Co. v. Harris 561 (1905) Daynonenone 2d Cir. affirmed

Notes and references

    1. "Supreme Court Research Guide". Georgetown Law Library. Retrieved April 7, 2021.

    See also