Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), is an early United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a yearly tax on carriages did not violate the Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 requirements for the apportioning of direct taxes. The Court concluded that the carriage tax was not a direct tax, which would require apportionment among the states. The Court noted that a tax on land was an example of a direct tax that was contemplated by the 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.
This is a list of cases reported in volume 1 of United States Reports, decided by various Pennsylvania courts from 1754 to 1789.
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..
Lessee of Weston v Stammers, 1 U.S. 2 and Lessee of Lewis v. Stammers, 1 U.S. 2 are decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued when Pennsylvania was still a British colony. They are among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.
Hewes v. M'Dowell, 1 U.S. 5 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued when Pennsylvania was still a British colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.
Lessee of Fothergill v. Fothergill, 1 U.S. 6 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued when Pennsylvania was still a British colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports.
The King v. Haas, 1 U.S. 9 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued when Pennsylvania was still a British colony. It is among the first decisions that appear in the first volume of United States Reports, and is among the earliest appellate court reports in North America. It is also one of the first reported appellate cases to apply the writ of habeas corpus, then an established principle of English law, in the English colonies that later became the first thirteen states of the United States of America.
Alfred Moore was an American judge, lawyer, planter and military officer who became an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Moore Square, a park located in the Moore Square Historic District in Raleigh, North Carolina was named in his honor, as was Moore County, North Carolina. He was also a founder and trustee of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 U.S. 402 (1792), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "[a] State may sue in the Supreme Court to enjoin payment of a judgment in behalf of a British creditor taken on a debt, which was confiscated by the State, until it can be ascertained to whom the money belongs".
Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 U.S. 8 (1799), was a 1799 decision of the United States Supreme Court asserting that "[t]he 11th section of the Judiciary Act, makes it necessary to state on the record the citizenship of the payee of a negotiable note sued on by an indorsee."
Dewhurst v. Coulthard, 3 U.S. 409 (1799), was a United States Supreme Court case that initiated with a civil suit brought by Isaac Coulthard 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."
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.
Bas v. Tingy, 4 U.S. 37 (1800) was a case in maritime law, argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1800. The parties were John Bas, owner of the private vessel Eliza which was captured by French privateers at sea, and Tingy, commander of a public armed vessel—the Ganges—which recovered the Eliza.
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.
