Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Decision levers
AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
Living constitutionalismOriginalism
In East Hartford and related land-title disputes, the Court interprets the Contract Clause by examining the historical character of legislative grants to municipalities rather than treating them as protected private contracts. Town of East Hartford v. HartFor… ↗ Doe v. Mayor, Alderman, and Comm… ↗
PurposivismTextualism
Revenue and customs cases such as Marriott v. Brune and Greely v. Thompson insist on duties only for goods actually arriving, personal examination by appraisers, and strict compliance with statutory timing and procedural requirements. Marriott v. Brune ↗ Greely v. Thompson ↗ Maxwell v. Griswold ↗
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
Reeside v. Walker enforces the constitutional bar on payments from the Treasury absent an appropriation, while East Hartford permits state legislatures broad power to alter municipal ferry rights. Town of East Hartford v. HartFor… ↗ Reeside v. Walker ↗
Judicial activismJudicial restraint
The Court repeatedly affirms lower-court outcomes once procedural prerequisites are satisfied and declines to expand equitable relief beyond statutory or common-law bounds. Barrow v. Reab ↗ Fowler v. Merrill ↗ Reeside v. Walker ↗
Affiliations
Supreme Court of the United States — appointed by James K. Polk
This case involved a mortgage foreclosure action brought by Merrill against Dawson and subsequent purchasers of slaves that had been pledged as collateral for notes Merrill had endorsed. The lower court ruled for Merrill, ordering the respondents to pay over $18,000 or face foreclosure and loss of the slaves or their value, plus accounting for hire. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the mortgage was validly executed and recorded well before the respondents acquired the slaves, that objections to deposition evidence and timing were meritless, and that the lower court's valuation and hire calculations were appropriate. The Court rejected arguments that the mortgage was fraudulent due to the mortgagor's retained possession, noting the recording provided notice, and found no error in presuming a child was born to one of the mortgaged women or in the net hire assessment.
In this admiralty case, the owners and master of the steamship Globe filed a libel in rem against the schooner Lucy Ann and its cargo seeking compensation for salvage services after assisting the vessel when it ran aground. The District Court awarded salvage equal to one-fifth of the value of the vessel and cargo. On appeal by the schooner's master, the Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the amounts at issue in salvage claims against individual owners or consignees each fell below the $2,000 threshold required for appellate review, and the master lacked authority to represent the separate cargo interests on appeal without specific authorization.
In Conrad v. Griffey, Griffey sued Conrad over the construction of a sugar-cane mill, with Conrad defending on grounds that the work and materials were defective. At trial, after Conrad introduced prior inconsistent statements by a witness who had testified in support of the mill's quality, Griffey sought to introduce the witness's later consistent statements, which the lower court admitted over Conrad's objection. The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that subsequent consistent statements by an impeached witness are generally inadmissible because they lack the requisite independence from potential bias or motive to rehabilitate credibility and do not qualify as substantive evidence. The Court based its decision on prevailing general principles of evidence, noting a trend in federal and many state courts toward exclusion of such testimony when made after the impeaching statements.
This case involved a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by the executrix of James Reeside against the Secretary of the Treasury, seeking to compel the entry of a credit and payment of $188,496.06 based on a jury verdict from an earlier federal lawsuit in Pennsylvania where a set-off was pleaded against the United States on post-office contracts. The Circuit Court dismissed the petition, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The Court reasoned that the docket minutes from the prior case did not constitute a final judgment of indebtedness against the United States that could be enforced by mandamus, as Pennsylvania procedure in set-off cases required a scire facias to establish such a judgment. Additionally, even assuming a valid judgment existed, no mandamus could issue because the Constitution prohibits drawing funds from the Treasury without a congressional appropriation, and no such appropriation had been made for this claim.
This case involved grandchildren of Joseph Simon claiming that a conveyance of partnership lands from his estate's executrix to Simon Gratz was fraudulent, seeking to void it and require accounting for sales and rents. The lower court found the conveyance fraudulent but, due to subsequent sales to innocent purchasers, ordered Gratz to pay the full value without deductions. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that there were no strong indications of fraud given the family connections, the consideration paid, and equitable circumstances in the family settlement, and remanded the case to dismiss the bill or adjust to enforce the agreement while accounting for claims.
This case involved an action on an official bond against a collector of the port of New Orleans for failing to pay over duties collected for the United States and make proper returns, including treasury notes received and later lost or altered after cancellation. The lower court instructed the jury that the collector was not liable for two altered notes accepted without knowledge of the alteration or for notes that were cancelled and prepared for mailing but lost before reaching the post office, leading to a partial verdict for the government. The Supreme Court held both instructions erroneous, ruling that the collector remained liable under his bond and official duties for accepting altered notes and for the lost notes until they were properly transmitted to the Treasury as required by law and circulars. The Court reasoned that the collector acted as a government officer, not a mere bailee, and was responsible for ensuring valid payments and following transmission procedures to prevent fraud or loss, with damages to be proven on remand. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
