United States v. Hooe

Last updated
United States v. Hooe
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Full case nameThe United States of America v. T.R. Hooe & Others
Citations5 U.S. 318 ( more )
1 Cranch 318; 2 L. Ed. 121; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 364
Case history
Subsequent 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 73 (1805)
Case opinion
Per curiam
Laws applied
District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801

United States v. Hooe, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 318 (1803), is a case of the Supreme Court of the United States. It was a case that hinged mainly on procedural issues relating to the documents that must accompany an appeal from courts within the District of Columbia. [1]

Contents

Background of the case

The Supreme Court had already ruled in Jennings v. The Perseverance , 3 U.S. (3 Dall. )336(1797) that the writs of error must be accompanied by a factual record. [2] The act of Congress 27 February 1801, creating the District of Columbia held that, writs should be prosecuted in the same manner as had been the case of writs of error on judgments or appeals upon orders or decrees rendered in the circuit court of the United States. [1]

The decision

The court held that the act of congress and the prior precedent, when taken together meant that all appeals from the District of Columbia must be accompanied by a statement of facts.

See also

Notes and references

  1. 1 2 United States v. Hooe, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1 ) 318 (1803).
  2. Jennings v. The Perseverance , 3 U.S. (3 Dall. ) 336 (1797).

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States courts of appeals</span> Post-1891 U.S. appellate circuit courts

The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal judiciary. The courts of appeals are divided into 11 numbered circuits that cover geographic areas of the United States and hear appeals from the U.S. district courts within their borders, the District of Columbia Circuit, which covers only Washington, D.C., and the Federal Circuit, which hears appeals from federal courts across the United States in cases involving certain specialized areas of law. The courts of appeals also hear appeals from some administrative agency decisions and rulemaking, with by far the largest share of these cases heard by the D.C. Circuit. Appeals from decisions of the courts of appeals can be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A writ of coram nobis is a legal order allowing a court to correct its original judgment upon discovery of a fundamental error that did not appear in the records of the original judgment's proceedings and that would have prevented the judgment from being pronounced. The term coram nobis is Latin for "before us" and the meaning of its full form, quae coram nobis resident, is "which [things] remain in our presence". The writ of coram nobis originated in the courts of common law in the English legal system during the sixteenth century.

The Midnight Judges Act represented an effort to solve an issue in the U.S. Supreme Court during the early 19th century. There was concern, beginning in 1789, about the system that required the Justices of the Supreme Court to "ride circuit" and reiterate decisions made in the appellate level courts. The Supreme Court Justices had often expressed concern and suggested that the judges of the Supreme and circuit courts be divided. The Act was repealed by Congress on January 22, 1802.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Reports, volume 2</span>

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..

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Reports, volume 4</span>

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..

United States v. Schooner Sally, 6 U.S. 406 (1805), was an 1805 decision of the United States Supreme Court which found that the question of forfeiture of a vessel is of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, not of common law.

Bailiff v. Tipping, 6 U.S. 406 (1805), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a citation must accompany a writ of error in order for the court to hear the case.

United States v. Simms, 5 U.S. 252 (1803), was a United States Supreme Court case. It was one of a series of cases dealing with the applicability of previous laws in the newly created District of Columbia.

Jennings v. The Perseverance, 3 U.S. 336 (1797), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that: "The decision in Wiscart v. Dauchy, confirmed. An objection that counsel fees were allowed in the court below as part of the damages, can not be entertained unless the fact appears by the record. If a prize is sold by agreement, and the money stopped in the hands of the marshal, by a third person, not a party to the agreement, increased damages are not allowed, but only interest on the debt.."

Course v. Stead, 4 U.S. 22 (1800), was an 1800 decision of the United States Supreme Court asserting that "A writ of error, tested in the vacation after the last term, is amendable. The omission of the name of the district in the address of the writ is not material if the indorsement and attestation show the district. If the value of the matter in dispute does not appear, it may be shown by affidavit. If a new party and subject-matter are brought before the court by a supplemental bill, it must show that the court has jurisdiction by reason of the citizenship of the parties to that bill."

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Marshall Court</span>

The Marshall Court (1801–1835) heard forty-one criminal law cases, slightly more than one per year. Among such cases are United States v. Simms (1803), United States v. More (1805), Ex parte Bollman (1807), United States v. Hudson (1812), Cohens v. Virginia (1821), United States v. Perez (1824), Worcester v. Georgia (1832), and United States v. Wilson (1833).

United States v. More, 7 U.S. 159 (1805), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear appeals from criminal cases in the circuit courts by writs of error. Relying on the Exceptions Clause, More held that Congress's enumerated grants of appellate jurisdiction to the Court operated as an exercise of Congress's power to eliminate all other forms of appellate jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Taney Court</span>

The Taney Court heard thirty criminal law cases, approximately one per year. Notable cases include Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), United States v. Rogers (1846), Ableman v. Booth (1858), Ex parte Vallandigham (1861), and United States v. Jackalow (1862).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States</span> When cases are heard without going through lower courts

The Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction in a small class of cases described in Article III, section 2, of the United States Constitution and further delineated by statute.