| Stoddard v. Martin | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
| Full case name | Martin Stoddard v. Wheeler Martin |
| Decided | March, 1828 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Samuel Eddy |
Stoddard v. Martin 1 R.I. 1 (1828) was the first case recorded in the official reports of the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
On October 26, 1826 plaintiff Martin Stoddard bet former Rhode Island Supreme Court justice Wheeler Martin $50 that Ashur Robbins would be elected to the United States Senate. Plaintiff and defendant drew their respective checks for the amount of fifty dollars each check, and delivered both of said checks to a stakeholder, to be delivered to the party that won the bet. The plaintiff won the bet.
Stoddard received a check from Martin on October 26, 1826. On March 5, 1827 Stoddard requested the cashier of Eagle Bank in Providence to pay him the $50 from the check, who refused to pay. On the same day the plaintiff gave the defendant notice, whereby the defendant became liable. A jury awarded the plaintiff the amount bet, plus interest and costs.
On appeal the court reversed the decision stating a bet was void on principles of policy. The court further found that the bet could have produced corruption and debased the character of the individuals.
In the Court's first officially recorded decision, Chief Justice Samuel Eddy held that a bet on the outcome of the 1826 U.S. Senate election (Ashur Robbins won) was a void contract as against public policy because of its immorality. [1]
Chief Justice Eddy cited British common law precedent to support the decision. Cited cases include: Gilbert and Sykes, (16 East. 156); Vescher v. Yates (11 Johns. 31); Da Costa v. Jones (Cowp. 720); Bunn v. Riker (4 Johns. 428); Lansing v. Lansing (8 Johns. 454).
Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the rules and standards that courts follow when adjudicating civil lawsuits. These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced; what kind of service of process is required; the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases; the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure; the conduct of trials; the process for judgment; the process for post-trial procedures; various available remedies; and how the courts and clerks must function.
Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200 (1922), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Sherman Antitrust Act did not apply to Major League Baseball.
The Supreme Court of Delaware is the sole appellate court in the United States state of Delaware. Because Delaware is a popular haven for corporations, the Court has developed a worldwide reputation as a respected source of corporate law decisions, particularly in the area of mergers and acquisitions.
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal relief and damages if it arises in connection with their own tortious act. Particularly relevant in the law of contract, tort and trusts, ex turpi causa is also known as the illegality defence, since a defendant may plead that even though, for instance, he broke a contract, conducted himself negligently or broke an equitable duty, nevertheless a claimant by reason of his own illegality cannot sue. The UK Supreme Court provided a thorough reconsideration of the doctrine in 2016 in Patel v Mirza.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court is the court of last resort in the U.S. State of Rhode Island. The Court consists of a Chief Justice and four Associate Justices, all selected by the Governor of Rhode Island from candidates vetted by the Judicial Nominating Commission. Each justice enjoys lifetime tenure and no mandatory retirement age, similar to Federal judges. Justices may be removed only if impeached for improper conduct by a vote of the Rhode Island House of Representatives and convicted by trial in the Rhode Island Senate.
Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co., 382 P.2d 109, is a US contract law case decided by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. It concerns the question of when specific performance of a contractual obligation will be granted and the measure of expectation damages.
Gustafson v. Payless Drug Stores was a 1974 decision of the Oregon Supreme Court regarding an alleged case of shoplifting. The case deals mainly with the issues of malice and probable cause from a legal standpoint.
The Court of Civil Jurisdiction was a court established in the late 18th century, in the colony of New South Wales which subsequently became a state of Australia. The court had jurisdiction to deal with all civil disputes in the then fledgling colony. It was in operation between 1788, the date of establishment of the new colony, and 1814.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), is an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Employers cannot be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more. Justice Alito held for the five-justice majority that each paycheck received did not constitute a discrete discriminatory act, even if was affected by a prior decision outside the time limit. Ledbetter's claim of the “paycheck accrual rule” was rejected. The decision did not prevent plaintiffs from suing under other laws, like the Equal Pay Act, which has a three-year deadline for most sex discrimination claims, or 42 U.S.C. 1981, which has a four-year deadline for suing over race discrimination.
Samuel Eddy was a U.S. Representative from Rhode Island. Born Johnston in the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Eddy completed preparatory studies. He graduated from Brown University in 1787. He studied law, was admitted to the bar in 1790 and practiced a short time in Providence. He served as clerk of the Rhode Island Supreme Court from 1790 to 1793. He also served as Rhode Island Secretary of State from 1798 to 1819.
The New York Court of Chancery was the highest court in the State of New York from 1701 to 1847.
West v. Barnes, 2 U.S. 401 (1791), was the first United States Supreme Court decision and the earliest case calling for oral argument. Van Staphorst v. Maryland (1791) was docketed prior to West v. Barnes but settled before the Court heard the case: West was argued on August 2 and decided on August 3, 1791. Collet v. Collet (1792) was the first appellate case docketed with the Court but was dropped before it could be heard. Supreme Court Reporter Alexander Dallas did not publish the justices' full opinions in West v. Barnes, which were published in various newspapers around the country at the time, but he published an abbreviated summary of the decision.
Findlay v. McAllister, 113 U.S. 104 (1885), was a suit brought against Thomas McAllister and 14 other defendants, to recover damages as follows:
The Taney Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1836 to 1864, when Roger Taney served as the fifth Chief Justice of the United States. Taney succeeded John Marshall as Chief Justice after Marshall's death in 1835. Taney served as Chief Justice until his death in 1864, at which point Salmon P. Chase took office. Taney had been an important member of Andrew Jackson's administration, an advocate of Jacksonian democracy, and had played a major role in the Bank War, during which Taney wrote a memo questioning the Supreme Court's power of judicial review. However, the Taney Court did not strongly break from the decisions and precedents of the Marshall Court, as it continued to uphold a strong federal government with an independent judiciary. Most of the Taney Court's holdings are overshadowed by the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which the court ruled that African-Americans could not be citizens. However, the Taney Court's decisions regarding economic issues and separation of powers set important precedents, and the Taney Court has been lauded for its ability to adapt regulatory law to a country undergoing remarkable technological and economic progress.
Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, 553 U.S. 662 (2008), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that plaintiffs under the False Claims Act must prove that the false claim was made with the specific intent of inducing the government to pay or approve payment of a false or fraudulent claim, rather than merely defrauding a contractor. Congress overruled this decision with the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009.
Cooper Manufacturing Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U.S. 727 (1885), was a suit regarding the legitimacy of a sale of a steam engine and other machinery in the State of Ohio.
Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. 113 (1871), was a United States Supreme Court case that questioned the United States Federal government's ability to impose a tax upon the "salary of a judicial officer of the State." Even though this particular case favors state employees' rights, it was overruled in 1939 by Graves v. New York, where the Supreme Court ruled that the income tax imposed by the State of New York on an employee of the Federal Home Owners Load Corporation was constitutional, since there was no requirement of immunity contained in the Constitution or in any act of Congress. It is still important to Constitutional law because Judge Nelson's opinion gives us a clear statement of the doctrine of dual federalism.
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.
Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341 is an English contract law case, concerning the principles behind illegal transactions.
The floodgates principle, or the floodgates argument, is a legal principle which is sometimes applied by judges to restrict or limit the right to make claims for damages because of a concern that permitting a claimant to recover in such situations might open the metaphorical "floodgates" to large numbers of claims and lawsuits. The principle is most frequently cited in common law jurisdictions, and in English tort law in particular.