List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 198

This is a list of cases reported in volume 198 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1905.

Supreme Court of the United States
Map
38°53′26″N 77°00′16″W / 38.89056°N 77.00444°W / 38.89056; -77.00444
EstablishedMarch 4, 1789; 235 years ago (1789-03-04)
LocationWashington, D.C.
Coordinates38°53′26″N 77°00′16″W / 38.89056°N 77.00444°W / 38.89056; -77.00444
Composition methodPresidential nomination with Senate confirmation
Authorized byConstitution of the United States, Art. III, § 1
Judge term lengthlife tenure, subject to impeachment and removal
Number of positions9 (by statute)
Websitesupremecourt.gov

Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 198 U.S.

The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices).[1] Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice).

When the cases in volume 198 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members:

PortraitJusticeOfficeHome StateSucceededDate confirmed by the Senate
(Vote)
Tenure on Supreme Court
Melville FullerChief JusticeIllinoisMorrison WaiteJuly 20, 1888
(41–20)
October 8, 1888

July 4, 1910
(Died)
John Marshall HarlanAssociate JusticeKentuckyDavid DavisNovember 29, 1877
(Acclamation)
December 10, 1877

October 14, 1911
(Died)
David Josiah BrewerAssociate JusticeKansasStanley MatthewsDecember 18, 1889
(53–11)
January 6, 1890

March 28, 1910
(Died)
Henry Billings BrownAssociate JusticeMichiganSamuel Freeman MillerDecember 29, 1890
(Acclamation)
January 5, 1891

May 28, 1906
(Retired)
Edward Douglass WhiteAssociate JusticeLouisianaSamuel BlatchfordFebruary 19, 1894
(Acclamation)
March 12, 1894

December 18, 1910
(Continued as chief justice)
Rufus W. PeckhamAssociate JusticeNew YorkHowell Edmunds JacksonDecember 9, 1895
(Acclamation)
January 6, 1896

October 24, 1909
(Died)
Joseph McKennaAssociate JusticeCaliforniaStephen Johnson FieldJanuary 21, 1898
(Acclamation)
January 26, 1898

January 5, 1925
(Retired)
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.Associate JusticeMassachusettsHorace GrayDecember 4, 1902
(Acclamation)
December 8, 1902

January 12, 1932
(Retired)
William R. DayAssociate JusticeOhioGeorge Shiras Jr.February 23, 1903
(Acclamation)
March 2, 1903

November 13, 1922
(Retired)

Notable Cases in 198 U.S.

Lochner v. New York

Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), is a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that a New York state law setting maximum working hours for bakers violated the bakers' right to freedom of contract under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The underlying case began in 1899 when Joseph Lochner, a German immigrant who owned a bakery in Utica, New York, was charged with violating New York's Bakeshop Act of 1895. The Bakeshop Act had made it a crime for New York bakeries to employ bakers for more than 10 hours per day or 60 hours per week. He was convicted and ultimately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. A majority of the Supreme Court held that the law violated the due process clause, stating that the law constituted an "unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of the individual to contract". Four dissenting justices rejected that view, and the dissent of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in particular, became one of the most famous opinions in US legal history. Holmes wrote:

"[A] constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire. It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States. General propositions do not decide concrete cases". (198 U.S. 75-76)

United States v. Ju Toy

In United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (1905), the Supreme Court held that a citizen of the United States could be barred entry into the country based solely on an administrative decision, without routine recourse to the courts even on the factual question of citizenship. The Court determined that refusing entry at a port does not deny due process, and held that findings by immigration officials are conclusive and not subject to judicial review unless there is evidence of bias or negligence. This case marked a shift in the Court in respect to habeas corpus petitions and altered the judicial landscape for citizens applying for admission into the United States as well as for those facing deportation. The Court came to a different conclusion in 1922, that habeas corpus petitioners are entitled to a de novo judicial hearing to determine whether they are U.S. citizens (Ng Fung Ho v. White).

Citation style

Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region.

The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari.

Bluebook citation style is used for case names, citations, and jurisdictions.

List of cases in volume 198 U.S.

Case NamePage & yearOpinion of the CourtConcurring opinion(s)Dissenting opinion(s)Lower CourtDisposition
Benson v. Henkel1 (1905)BrownDaynoneC.C.S.D.N.Y.affirmed
Pabst B. Co. v. Crenshaw17 (1905)WhitenoneBrownC.C.W.D. Mo.affirmed
Lochner v. New York45 (1905)PeckhamnoneHarlan; HolmesOneida Cnty. Ct.reversed
Beavers v. Haubert77 (1905)McKennanonenoneE.D.N.Y.affirmed
Humphrey v. Tatman91 (1905)HolmesnonenoneMass. Super. Ct.reversed
Remington v. Central P.R.R. Co.95 (1905)HolmesnonenoneC.C.N.D.N.Y.affirmed
City of Covington v. First Nat'l Bank100 (1905)DaynonenoneC.C.E.D. Ky.affirmed
Bonin v. Gulf Co.115 (1905)Fullernonenone5th Cir.dismissed
Howe S. Co. v. Wyckoff, S. & B.118 (1905)Fullernonenone2d Cir.reversed
Steigleder v. McQuesten141 (1905)HarlannonenoneC.C.D. Wash.affirmed
Jaster v. Currie144 (1905)HolmesnonenoneNeb.reversed
Allen v. Arguimbau149 (1905)FullernonenoneFla.dismissed
Rodriguez v. United States156 (1905)HarlannonenoneD.P.R.affirmed
Dunbar v. Green166 (1905)BrownnonenoneKan.reversed
In re Glaser171 (1905)FullernonenoneC.C.E.D.N.Y.mandamus denied
Schlosser v. Hemphill173 (1905)FullernonenoneIowadismissed
Wells Co. v. Gastonia C. Mfg. Co.177 (1905)Harlannonenone4th Cir.reversed
Riverdale C.M. v. Alabama G. Mfg. Co.188 (1905)Brewernonenone5th Cir.affirmed
Holden v. Stratton202 (1905)Whitenonenone9th Cir.reversed
Harris v. Balk215 (1905)PeckhamnonenoneN.C.reversed
Harley v. United States229 (1905)McKennanonenoneCt. Cl.affirmed
Chicago Bd. Trade v. Christie G. & S. Co.236 (1905)Holmesnonenone8th Cir.multiple
United States v. Ju Toy253 (1905)HolmesnoneBrewer9th Cir.certification
First Nat'l Bank v. Chicago T. & T. Co.280 (1905)Fullernonenone7th Cir.reversed
Empire State et al. Co. v. Hanley292 (1905)Fullernonenone9th Cir.dismissed
Old Dominion S.S. Co. v. Virginia299 (1905)BrewernonenoneVa.affirmed
Thompson v. Darden310 (1905)WhitenonenoneVa.affirmed
Harding v. Harding317 (1905)WhitenonenoneCal.reversed
Delaware et al. R.R. Co. v. Pennsylvania341 (1905)PeckhamnonenonePa.reversed
Clark v. Nash361 (1905)PeckhamnonenoneUtahaffirmed
United States v. Winans371 (1905)McKennanonenoneC.C.D. Wash.reversed
Chicago et al. Ry. Co. v. United States385 (1905)McKennanonenoneCt. Cl.affirmed
Birrell v. New York & H.R.R. Co.390 (1905)McKennanonenoneN.Y. Sup. Ct.reversed
Savannah et al. Ry. v. City of Savannah392 (1905)HolmesnonenoneGa.affirmed
Cimiotti U. Co. v. American F.R. Co.399 (1905)Daynonenone3d Cir.affirmed
Leonard v. Vicksburg et al. R.R. Co.416 (1905)FullernonenoneLa.dismissed
Chicago Bd. Trade v. Hammond E. Co.424 (1905)BrownnonenoneC.C.N.D. Ill.reversed
Lavagnino v. Uhlig443 (1905)WhitenonenoneUtahaffirmed
Cunnius v. Reading Sch. Dist.458 (1905)WhitenonenonePa.affirmed
Kendall v. American A.L. Co.477 (1905)PeckhamnonenoneC.C.S.D.N.Y.affirmed
Louisville & N.R.R. Co. v. West C.N.S. Co.483 (1905)Peckhamnonenone5th Cir.reversed
Ah Sin v. Wittman500 (1905)McKennanonenoneCal. Super. Ct.affirmed
Knights of Pythias v. Meyer508 (1905)McKennanonenoneN.Y. Sup. Ct.affirmed
Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Dashiell521 (1905)McKennanonenone5th Cir.affirmed
Union T. Co. v. Wilson530 (1905)Holmesnonenone7th Cir.certification
Whitney v. Wenman539 (1905)DaynonenoneS.D.N.Y.reversed
Van Reed v. People's Nat'l Bank554 (1905)DaynonenoneN.Y.affirmed
Great et al. Co. v. Harris561 (1905)Daynonenone2d Cir.affirmed

Notes and references

See also

External links