| United States v. Segui | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided February 6, 1836 | |
| Full case name | United States v. Bernardo Segui |
| Citations | 35 U.S. 306 ( more ) |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Baldwin, joined by unanimous court |
United States v. Segui, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 306 (1836), was a United States Supreme Court case.
Appeal from the superior court for East Florida.
January Term, 1836
Mr Justice Baldwin delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from a decree of the judge of the superior court for the eastern district of Florida, confirming the claim of the appellee to sixteen thousand acres (65 km²) of land; pursuant to the Acts of Congress for the adjustment of land claims in Florida.
In the court below, the petition was in the form prescribed by law, presenting a proper case for the jurisdiction of the court.
The claim of the petitioner was founded on his application to the governor of East Florida, for a grant of sixteen thousand acres (65 km²) of land, in consideration of his services to the Spanish government; and for erecting machinery for the purpose of sawing timber. The grant was made by the governor, in absolute property, with a promise of a title in form. The date of the grant was the 6th of December 1814.
It has been suggested by the attorney-general, that though there was no express condition in the grant, one was implied from the consideration being in part the erection of a saw-mill. But we cannot attach any condition to a grant of absolute property in the whole quantity. It was exclusively for the governor to judge of the conditions to be imposed on his grant: he appears to have considered the services of the appellee a sufficient consideration, and made the grant absolute.
The land was surveyed in one tract, at the place called for in the grant, on 2 September 1818. On an inspection of the whole record, we are of opinion that the title of the petitioner to the land surveyed, is valid; and therefore affirm the decree of the court below.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the superior court for the district of East Florida, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by this court, that the decree of the said superior court for the district of East Florida in this cause be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
This is one of the Spanish Land Grant cases from early 19th century Florida. America's highest court ruled on an appeal by the United States of a Florida court's decision to honor a land grant to the appellee of 16,000 acres (65 km²).
Works related to United States v. Segui at Wikisource Taney Court (1836–1864) | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Justices |  | ||||||||||||||
| Decisions |
| ||||||||||||||
| Statutes | |||||||||||||||
United States appellate procedure involves the rules and regulations for filing appeals in state courts and federal courts. The nature of an appeal can vary greatly depending on the type of case and the rules of the court in the jurisdiction where the case was prosecuted. There are many types of standard of review for appeals, such as de novo and abuse of discretion. However, most appeals begin when a party files a petition for review to a higher court for the purpose of overturning the lower court's decision.
The Terri Schiavo case was a series of court and legislative actions in the United States from 1998 to 2005, regarding the care of Theresa Marie Schiavo, a woman in an irreversible persistent vegetative state. Schiavo's husband and legal guardian argued that Schiavo would not have wanted prolonged artificial life support without the prospect of recovery, and in 1998 elected to remove her feeding tube. Schiavo's parents disputed her husband's assertions and challenged Schiavo's medical diagnosis, arguing in favor of continuing artificial nutrition and hydration. The highly publicized and prolonged series of legal challenges presented by her parents, which ultimately involved state and federal politicians up to the level of President George W. Bush, caused a seven-year delay before Schiavo's feeding tube was ultimately removed.
Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000), was a case filed in 1996 by Big Island rancher Harold "Freddy" Rice against the state of Hawaii and argued before the United States Supreme Court. In 2000, the Court ruled that the state could not restrict eligibility to vote in elections for the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to persons of Native Hawaiian descent.
Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the use of lethal injection as a form of execution in the state of Florida. The Court ruled unanimously that a challenge to the method of execution as violating the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution properly raised a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for civil rights violations, rather than under the habeas corpus provisions. Accordingly, that the prisoner had previously sought habeas relief could not bar the present challenge.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005 until October 1, 2006.
Schneider v. State of New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147 (1939), was a United States Supreme Court decision that combined four similar appeals, each of which presented the question whether regulations embodied in municipal ordinances abridged the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press secured against state invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the "total takings" test for evaluating whether a particular regulatory action constitutes a regulatory taking that requires compensation.
Central Railroad & Banking Co. of Ga. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116 (1885), was an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle district of Alabama in favor of the appellees, Pettus & Dawson and Watts & Sons, adjudging them entitled to the sum of, 161.21, and interest thereon at eight percent per annum from March 7, 1881, with lien, to secure its payment, upon the roadbed, depots, side tracks, turnouts, trestles, and bridges owned and used by the appellants, corporations of the State of Georgia, in operating the railroad formerly belonging to the Montgomery and West Point Railroad Company, an Alabama corporation, and which extends from Montgomery to West Point with a branch from Opelika to Columbus. This property was directed to be exposed to sale unless within a given time the said amount was paid. This suit is the outgrowth of certain litigation in the courts of Alabama relating to the before-mentioned and other railroad property in which the appellants are interested.
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding on the issue of immunity of cabinet officers from suits from individuals.
Stanley Marcus is a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and a former United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Ex parte Bigelow, 113 U.S. 328 (1885), was an application for a writ of habeas corpus to release the petitioner from imprisonment in the District of Columbia jail where he was held, as he alleges, unlawfully by John S. Crocker, the warden of the jail. He presents with the petition the record of his conviction and sentence in the Supreme Court of the District to imprisonment for five years under an indictment for embezzlement, and this record and the petition of the applicant present all that could be brought before the court on a return to the writ, if one were awarded.
Delaware Tribal Business Committee v. Weeks, 430 U.S. 73 (1977), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.
Pearce v. Ham, 113 U.S. 585 (1885), was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois regarding a bill filed by Charles I. Ham, the appellee, against Isaac N. Pearce and Andrew J. Kuykendall, the appellants. Originally, one Joseph K. Frick contracted with the County Court of Johnson County in the State of Illinois, where he agreed to build, according to certain plans and specifications, a courthouse for said county at Vienna, the county seat, furnishing the material and completing it by the first Monday of September 1870, in consideration whereof the county court agreed to pay him $38,357 in the bonds of Johnson county, bearing ten percent interest, and due in six years. Frick never did any work on the building, and, owing to some misunderstanding with the county court, abandoned the contract and told Kuykendall that he might go on and build the courthouse if he chose to do so. On September 9, 1869, Kuykendall, as the agent and attorney in fact of Frick, assigned the contract of the latter to Ham and Pearce, Ham being the appellee, and Pearce one of the appellants, who had formed a partnership for the purpose of building the courthouse under said contract.
United States v. Johnson, 68 U.S. 326 (1863), was a United States Supreme Court case.
Rancho San Gregorio was a 17,783-acre (71.97 km2) Mexican land grant in present day San Mateo County, California given in 1839 by Governor Juan Alvarado to Antonio Buelna. At the time, the grant was in Santa Cruz County; an 1868 boundary adjustment gave the land to San Mateo County. The rancho extended from Tunitas Creek in the north to the mouth of Pomponio Creek and encompassed San Gregorio, California, San Gregorio State Beach and La Honda
Rancho Yokaya was a 35,541-acre (143.83 km2) Mexican land grant in present day Mendocino County, California given in 1845 by Governor Pío Pico to Cayetano Juarez. The name Yokaya means "south valley" in the language of the Pomo people. The grant extended along the Russian River from the southern end of Ukiah Valley to the northern end of Redwood Valley, from one to two miles wide, and approximating sixteen miles in length, and encompassed present day Ukiah.
Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case about racial issues in jury selection in death penalty cases. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the 7–2 majority, ruled that the prosecutor's use of peremptory strikes to remove African American jurors violated the Court's earlier holding in Batson v. Kentucky. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
The Supreme Court of the United States, under Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (1836–1864), issued several important decisions on the status of aboriginal title in the United States, building on the opinions of aboriginal title in the Marshall Court.
In Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, No. 16-499, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute. Enacted as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Alien Tort Statute allows foreign nationals to bring lawsuits in U.S. district courts for torts "in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." At issue in this case was whether the Alien Tort Statute allows foreign corporations to be sued in U.S. courts. In a fractured decision delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court held, by a 5–4 vote, that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the Alien Tort Statute.
Sharp v. Murphy, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a Supreme Court of the United States case of whether Congress disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation. After holding the case from the 2018 term, the case was decided on July 9, 2020, in a per curiam decision following McGirt v. Oklahoma that, for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act, the reservations were never disestablished and remain Native American country.