archive-edu.com » EDU » C » CORNELL.EDU

Total: 1513

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts
    after their layoff and that others who were demoted have been offered back their old positions First the injunction is still in force and unless set aside must be complied with in connection with any p562 future layoffs Second even if the injunction applied only to the 1981 layoffs the predicate for it was the ruling that the consent decree must be modified to provide that the layoffs were not to reduce the percentage of black employees and the lower courts rulings that the seniority system must be disregarded for the purpose of achieving the mandated result remain undisturbed Accordingly the inquiry is not merely whether the injunction is still in effect but whether the mandated modification of the consent decree continues to have an impact on the parties such that the cases remain alive Respondents have failed to convince this Court that the modification and the pro tanto invalidation of the seniority system are of no real concern to the city because it will never again contemplate layoffs that if carried out in accordance with the seniority system would violate the modified decree Finally the judgment below will have a continuing effect on management of the Fire Department with respect to making whole the white employees who were laid off and thereby lost a month s pay and seniority or who were demoted and thereby may have backpay claims Unless that judgment is reversed the layoffs and demotions were in accordance with the law The fact that not much money and seniority are involved does not determine mootness Pp 568 572 2 The District Court s preliminary injunction cannot be justified either as an effort to enforce the consent decree or as a valid modification thereof Pp 572 583 a The injunction does not merely enforce the agreement of the parties as reflected in the consent decree The scope of a consent decree must be discerned within its four corners Here the consent decree makes no mention of layoffs or demotions nor is there any suggestion of an intention to depart from the existing seniority system or from the Department s arrangement with the union It therefore cannot be said that the decree s express terms contemplated that such an injunction would be entered Nor is the injunction proper as carrying out the stated purpose of the decree The remedy outlined in the decree did not include the displacement of white employees with seniority over blacks and cannot reasonably be construed to exceed the bounds of remedies that are appropriate under Title VII Title VII protects bona fide seniority systems and it is inappropriate to deny an innocent employee the benefits of his seniority in order to provide a remedy in a pattern or practice suit such as this Moreover since neither the union nor the white employees were parties to the suit when the consent decree was entered the entry of such decree cannot be said to indicate any agreement by them to any of its terms Pp

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0467_0561_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive


  • First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, California
    in an action for declaratory relief or a writ of mandamus and the government has nevertheless decided to continue the regulation in effect Because appellant alleged a regulatory taking and sought only damages the trial court deemed the allegation that the ordinance denied all use of Lutherglen to be irrelevant The California Court of Appeal affirmed Held 1 The claim that the Agins case improperly held that the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not require compensation as a remedy for temporary regulatory takings those regulatory takings which are ultimately invalidated by the courts is properly presented in this case In earlier cases this Court was unable to reach the question because either the regulations considered to be in issue by the state courts did not effect a taking or the factual disputes yet to be resolved by state authorities might still lead to the conclusion that no taking had occurred Here the California Court of Appeal assumed p305 that the complaint sought damages for the uncompensated taking of all use of Lutherglen by the ordinance and relied on the California Supreme Court s Agins decision for the conclusion that the remedy for the taking was limited to nonmonetary relief thus isolating the remedial question for this Court s consideration MacDonald Sommer Frates v Yolo County 477 U S 340 Williamson County Regional Planning Comm n v Hamilton Bank 473 U S 172 San Diego Gas Electric Co v San Diego 450 U S 621 and Agins all distinguished Pp 311 313 2 Under the Just Compensation Clause where the government has taken property by a land use regulation the landowner may recover damages for the time before it is finally determined that the regulation constitutes a taking of his property The Clause is designed not to limit

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0482_0304_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Fletcher v. Peck
    constitution for the government of the said State did form declare ratify and confirm such constitution in the words following Here was inserted the whole Constitution the sixteenth section of which declares that the General Assembly hall have power to make all laws and ordinances p92 which they shall deem necessary and proper for the good of the State which shall not be repugnant to this constitution The plea then avers that until and at the ratification and confirmation aforesaid of the said constitution the people of the said State were seised among other large parcels of land and tracts of country of all the tenements described by the said Fletcher in his said first count and of the soil thereof in absolute sovereignty and in fee simple subject only to the extinguishment of the Indian title to part thereon and that upon the confirmation and ratification of the said Constitution and by force thereof the said State of Georgia became seised in absolute sovereignty and in fee simple of all the tenements aforesaid with the soil thereof subject as aforesaid the same being within the territory and jurisdiction of the said State and the same State continued so seised in fee simple until the said tenements and soil were conveyed by letters patent under the great seal of the said State and under the signature of George Matthews Esq Governor thereof in the manner and form mentioned by the said Fletcher in his said first count And the said Peck further saith that on the 7th of January 1795 at a session of the General Assembly of the said State duly holden at Augusta within the same according to the provisions of the said constitution the said General Assembly then and there possessing all the powers vested in the Legislature of the said State by virtue of the said Constitution passed the Act above mentioned by the said Fletcher in the assignment of the breach aforesaid which Act is in the words following that is to say An Act supplementary c Here was recited the whole act which after a long preamble declares the jurisdictional and territorial rights and the fee simple to be in the State and then enacts that certain portions of the vacant lands should be sold to four distinct associations of individuals calling themselves respectively The Georgia Company The Georgia Mississippi Company The Upper Mississippi Company and The Tennessee Company The tract ordered to be sold to James Gunn and p93 others the Georgia Company was described as follows All that tract or parcel of land including islands situate lying and being within the following boundaries that is to say beginning on the Mobile bay where the latitude 31 deg north of the equator intersects the same running thence up the said bay to the mouth of Lake Tensaw thence up the said Lake Tensaw to the Alabama River including Curry s and all other islands therein thence up the said Alabama River to the junction of the Coosa and Oakfushee Rivers thence up the Coosa River above the big shoals to where it intersects the latitude of thirty four degrees north of the equator thence a due west course to the Mississippi River thence down the middle of the said river to the latitude 32 deg 40 min thence a due east course to the Don or Tombigby River thence down the middle of the said river to its junction with the Alabama River thence down the middle of the said river to Mobile Bay thence down the Mobile Bay to the place of beginning Upon payment of fifty thousand dollars the Governor was required to issue and sign a grant for the same taking a mortgage to secure the balance being two hundred thousand dollars payable on the first of November 1795 The plea then avers that all the tenements described in the first count are included in and parcel of the lands in the said Act to be sold to the said Gunn M Allister and Walker and their associates as in the Act is mentioned And that by force and virtue of the said Act and of the Constitution aforesaid of the said State the said Matthews Governor of the said State was fully and legally empowered to sell and convey the tenements aforesaid and the soil thereof subject as aforesaid in fee simple by the said patent under the seal of the said State and under his signature according to the terms limitations and conditions in the said Act mentioned And all this he is ready to verify wherefore c p94 To this plea there was a general demurrer and joinder Second plea To the second count the defendant protesting that the said Gunn M Allister and Walker did not make the promises and assurances to divers members of the Legislature of the said State of Georgia supposed by the said Fletcher in his second count for plea saith that until after the purchase by the said Greenleaf as is mentioned in the said second count neither he the said defendant nor the said Prime nor the said Greenleaf nor the said Phelps nor the said Hichborn nor either of them had any notice nor knowledge that any such promises and assurances were made by the said Gunn M Allister and Walker or either of them to any of the members of the Legislature of the said State of Georgia as is supposed by the said Fletcher in his said second count and this he is ready to verify c To this plea also there was a general demurrer and joinder The third plea to the third count was the same as the second plea with the addition of an averment that Greenleaf Prince Phelps Hichborn and the defendant were until and after the purchase by Greenleaf on the 22d of August 1795 and ever since have been citizens of some of the United States other than the State of Georgia To this plea also there was a general demurrer and joinder Fourth plea To the fourth count the defendant pleaded that at the time of passing the Act of the 7th of January 1795 the State of Georgia was seised in fee simple of all the tenements and territories aforesaid and of all the soil thereof subject only to the extinguishment of the Indian title to part thereof and of this he puts himself on the country and the plaintiff likewise p95 Upon the issue joined upon the fourth plea the jury found the following special verdict viz That his late majesty Charles the second King of Great Britain by his letters patent under the great seal of Great Britain bearing date the thirtieth day of June in the seventeenth year of his reign did grant unto Edward Earl of Clarendon George Duke of Albemarle William Earl of Craven John Lord Berkeley Antony Lord Ashby Sir George Carteret Sir John Colleton and Sir William Berkeley therein called lords proprietors and their heirs and assigns all that Province territory or tract of ground situate lying and being in North America and described as follows extending north and eastward as far as the north end of Carahtuke River or gullet upon a straight westerly line to Wyonoahe Creek which lies within or about the degrees of thirty six and thirty minutes of northern latitude and so west in a direct line as far as the South Seas and south and westward as far as the degrees of twenty nine inclusive northern latitude and so west in a direct line as far as the South Seas which territory was called Carolina together with all ports harbours bays rivers soil land fields woods lakes and other rights and privileges therein named that the said lords proprietors grantees aforesaid afterwards by force of said grant entered upon and took possession of said territory and established within the same many settlements and erected therein fortifications and posts of defence And the jury further find that the northern part of the said tract of land granted as aforesaid to the said lords proprietors was afterwards created a colony by the King of Great Britain under the name of North Carolina and that the most northern part of the thirty fifth degree of north latitude was then and ever afterwards the boundary and line between North Carolina and South Carolina and that the land described in the plaintiff s declaration is situate in that part of said tract formerly called Carolina which was afterwards a colony called South Carolina as aforesaid that afterwards on the twenty sixth day of July in the p96 third year of the reign of his late majesty George the second King of Great Britain and in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and twenty nine the heirs or legal representatives of all the said grantees except those of Sir George Carteret by deed of indenture made between authorized agents of the said King George the second and the heirs and representatives of the said grantees in conformity to an act of the parliament of said Kingdom of Great Britain entitled An act for establishing an agreement with seven of the lords proprietors of Carolina for the surrender of their title and interest in that Province to his majesty for and in consideration of the sum of twenty two thousand five hundred pounds of the money of Great Britain paid to the said heirs and representatives of the said seven of the lords proprietors by the said agent of the said King sold and surrendered to his said majesty King George the second all their right of soil and other privileges to the said granted territory which deed of indenture was duly executed and was enrolled in the chancery of Great Britain and there remains in the chapel of the rolls That afterwards on the ninth day of December one thousand seven hundred and twenty nine his said majesty George the second appointed Robert Johnson Esq to be Governor of the Province of South Carolina by a commission under the great seal of the said Kingdom of Great Britain in which commission the said Governor Johnson is authorized to grant lands within the said Province but no particular limits of the said Province is therein defined And the jury further find that the said Governor of South Carolina did exercise jurisdiction in and over the said colony of South Carolina under the commission aforesaid claiming to have jurisdiction by force thereof as far southward and westward as the southern and western bounds of the aforementioned grant of Carolina by King Charles the second to the said lords proprietors but that he was often interrupted therein and prevented therefrom in the southern and western parts of said grants by the public enemies of the King of Great Britain who at divers times p97 had actual possession of the southern and western parts aforesaid That afterwards the right honourable Lord Viscount Percival the honourable Edward Digby the honourable George Carpenter James Oglethorpe Esq with others petitioned the lords of the committee of his said majesty s Privy Council for a grant of lands in South Carolina for the charitable purpose of transporting necessitous persons and families from London to that Province to procure there a livelihood by their industry and to be incorporated for that purpose that the lords of the said Privy Council referred the said petition to the Board of Trade so called in Great Britain who on the seventeenth day of December in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and thirty made report thereon and therein recommended that his said majesty would be pleased to incorporate the said petitioners as a charitable society by the name of The Corporation for the purpose of establishing charitable colonies in America with perpetual succession And the said report further recommended that his said majesty be pleased to grant to the said petitioners and their successors for ever all that tract of land in his Province of South Carolina lying between the rivers Savannah and Alatamaha to be bounded by the most navigable and largest branches of the Savannah and the most southerly branch of the Alatamaha And that they should be separated from the Province of South Carolina and be made a colony independent thereof save only in the command of their militia That afterwards on the twenty second day of December one thousand seven hundred and thirty one the said board of trade reported further to the said lords of the Privy Council and recommended that the western boundary of the new charter of the colony to be established in South Carolina should extend as far as that described in the ancient patents granted by King Charles the Second to the late lords proprietors of Carolina whereby that Province was to extend westward in a direct line as far as the South Seas That afterwards on the ninth day of June in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and thirty two his said majesty George the p98 Second by his letters patent or royal charter under the great seal of the said Kingdom of Great Britain did incorporate the said Lord Viscount Percival and others the petitioners aforesaid into a body politic and corporate by the name of The trustees for establishing the Colony of Georgia in America with perpetual succession and did by the same letters patent give and grant in free and common socage and not in capite to the said corporation and their successors seven undivided parts the whole into eight equal parts to be divided of all those lands countries and territories situate lying and being in that part of South Carolina in America which lies from a northern stream of a river there commonly called the Savannah all along the seacoast to the southward unto the most southern branch of a certain other great water or river called the Alatamaha and westward from the heads of the said rivers respectively in direct lines to the South Seas and all the lands lying within said boundaries with the islands in the sea lying opposite to the eastern coast of the same together with all the soils grounds havens bays mines minerals woods rivers waters fishings jurisdictions franchises privileges and preeminences within the said territories That afterwards in the same year the right honourable John Lord Carteret Baron of Hawnes in the county of Bedford then Earl Granville and heir of the late Sir George Carteret one of the grantees and lords proprietors aforesaid by deed of indenture between him and the said trustees for establishing the Colony of Georgia in America for valuable consideration therein mentioned did give grant bargain and sell unto the said trustees for establishing the Colony of Georgia aforesaid and their successors all his one undivided eighth part of or belonging to the said John Lord Carteret the whole into eight equal parts to be divided of in and to the aforesaid territory seven undivided eight parts of which had been before granted by his said majesty to said trustees And the jury further find that one eighth part of the said territory granted to the said lords proprietors and called Carolina as aforesaid which eighth part belonged p99 to Sir George Carteret and was not surrendered as aforesaid was afterwards divided and set off in severalty to the heirs of the said Sir George Carteret in that part of said territory which was afterwards made a colony by the name of North Carolina That afterwards in the same year the said James Oglethorpe Esq one of the said corporation for and in the name of and as agent to the said corporation with a large number of other persons under his authority and control took possession of said territory granted as aforesaid to the said corporation made a treaty with some of the native Indians within said territory in which for and in behalf of said corporation he made purchases of said Indians of their native rights to parts of said territory and erected forts in several places to keep up marks of possession That afterwards on the sixth day of September in the year last mentioned on the application of said corporation to the said Board of Trade they the said Board of Trade in the name of his said majesty sent instructions to said Robert Johnson then Governor of South Carolina thereby willing and requiring him to give all due countenance and encouragement for the settling of the said Colony of Georgia by being aiding and assisting to any settlers therein and further requiring him to cause to be registered the aforesaid charter of the Colony of Georgia within the said Province of South Carolina and the same to be entered of record by the proper officer of the said Province of South Carolina And the jury further find that the Governor of South Carolina after the granting the said charter of the Colony of Georgia did exercise jurisdiction south of the southern limits of said Colony of Georgia claiming the same to be within the limits of his government and particularly that he had the superintendency and control of a military post there and did make divers grants of land there which lands have ever since been holden under his said grants That afterwards in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and fifty two by deed of indenture made between His said Majesty George the Second of the one part and the said trustees for establishing the p100 colony in America of the other part they the said trustees for divers valuable considerations therein expressed did for themselves and their successors grant surrender and yield up to His said Majesty George the Second his heirs and successors their said letters patent and their charter of corporation and all right title and authority to be or continue a corporate body and all their powers of government and all other powers jurisdictions franchises preeminences and privileges therein or thereby granted or conveyed to them and did also grant and convey to His said Majesty George the Second his heirs and successors all the said lands countries territories and premises as well the said one eighth part thereof granted by the said John Lord Carteret to them as aforesaid as also the said seven eighth parts thereof granted as aforesaid by His said Majesty s letters patent or charter as aforesaid together with all the soils grounds havens ports bays mines woods rivers waters fishings jurisdictions franchises privileges and preeminences within said territories with all their right title interest claim or demand whatsoever in and to the premises and which grant and surrender aforesaid was then accepted by His said Majesty for himself and his successors and said indenture was duly executed on the part of said trustees with the privity and by the direction of the common council of the said corporation by affixing the common seal of said corporation thereunto and on the part of His said Majesty by causing the great seal of Great Britain to be thereunto affixed That afterwards on the sixth day of August one thousand seven hundred and fifty four His said Majesty George the Second by his royal commission of that date under the great seal of Great Britain constituted and appointed John Reynolds Esq to be Captain General and Commander in Chief in and over said Colony of Georgia in America with the following boundaries viz lying from the most northerly stream of a river there commonly called Savannah all along the sea coast to the southward unto the most southern stream of a certain other great water or river called the Alatahama and westward from the heads of the said rivers respectively in straight lines to the South Seas and all the space circuit and precinct of p101 land lying within the said boundaries with the islands in the sea lying opposite to the eastern coast of said lands within twenty leagues of the same That afterwards on the tenth day of February in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and sixty three a definitive treaty of peace was concluded at Paris between his Catholic Majesty the King of Spain and his Majesty George the third King of Great Britain by the twentieth article of which treaty his said Catholic Majesty did cede and guaranty in full right to his Britannic Majesty Florida with fort St Augustin and the bay of Pensacola as well as all that Spain possessed on the continent of North America to the east or to the south east of the river Mississippi and in general all that depended on the said countries and island with the sovereignty property possession and all rights acquired by treaties or otherwise which the Catholic King and the Crown of Spain had till then over the said countries lands places and their inhabitants so that the Catholic King did cede and make over the whole to the said King and said Crown of Great Britain and that in the most ample manner and form That afterwards on the seventh day of October in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and sixty three His said Majesty George the Third King of Great Britain by and with the advice of his Privy Council did issue his royal proclamation therein publishing and declaring that he the said King of Great Britain had with the advice of his said Privy Council granted his letters patent under the great seal of Great Britain to erect within the countries and islands ceded and confirmed to him by the said treaty four distinct and separate governments styled and called by the names of Quebec East Florida West Florida and Grenada in which proclamation the said government of West Florida is described as follows viz bounded to the southward by the Gulf of Mexico including all islands within six leagues of the coast from the river Apalachicola to lake Pontchartrain to the westward by the said lake the lake Maurepas and the River Mississippi to the northward by p102 a line drawn due east from that part of the River Mississippi which lies in thirty one degrees of north latitude to the river Apalachicola or Catahouchee and to the eastward by the said river And in the same proclamation the said government of East Florida is described as follows viz bounded to the westward by the Gulf of Mexico and the Apalachicola river to the northward by a line drawn from that part of the said river where the Catahouchee and Flint Rivers meet to the source of St Mary s River and by the course of the said river to the Atlantic Ocean and to the east and south by the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Florida including all islands within six leagues of the seacoast And in and by the same proclamation all lands lying between the Rivers Alatamaha and St Mary s were declared to be annexed to the said Province of Georgia and that in and by the same proclamation it was further declared by the said King as follows viz That it is our royal will and pleasure for the present as aforesaid to reserve under our sovereignty protection and dominion for the use of the said Indians all the land and territories not included within the limits of our said three new governments or within the limits of the territory granted to the Hudson s Bay Company as also all the land and territories lying to the westward of the sources of the rivers which fall into the sea from the west and north west as aforesaid and we do hereby strictly forbid on pain of our displeasure all our loving subjects from making any purchases or settlements whatever or taking possession of any of the lands above reserved without our special leave and license for that purpose first obtained And the jury find that the land described in the plaintiff s declaration did lay to the westward of the sources of the rivers which fall into the sea from the west and northwest as aforesaid That afterwards on the twenty first day of November in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and sixty three and in the fourth year of the reign of said King George the Third he the said King by his royal commission under the great seal of Great Britain did constitute and appoint p103 George Johnstone Esq Captain General and Governor in Chief over the said Province of West Florida in America in which commission the said Province was described in the same words of limitation and extent as in said proclamation is before set down That afterwards on the twentieth day of January in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and sixty four the said King of Great Britain by his commission under the great seal of Great Britain did constitute and appoint James Wright Esq to be the Captain General and Governor in chief in and over the Colony of Georgia by the following bounds viz bounded on the north by the most northern stream of a river there commonly called Savannah as far as the heads of the said river and from thence westward as far as our territories extend on the east by the sea coast from the said river Savannah to the most southern stream of a certain other river called St Mary including all islands within twenty leagues of the coast lying between the said river Savannah and St Mary as far as the head thereof and from thence westward as far as our territories extend by the north boundary line of our Provinces of East and West Florida That afterwards from the year one thousand seven hundred and seventy five to the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty three an open war existed between the colonies of New Hampshire Massachusetts Bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Connecticut New York New Jersey Pennsylvania Delaware Maryland Virginia North Carolina South Carolina and Georgia called the United States on the one part and His said Majesty George the Third King of Great Britain on the other part And on the third day of September in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty three a definitive treaty of peace was signed and concluded at Paris by and between certain authorized commissioners on the part of the said belligerent powers which was afterwards duly ratified and confirmed by the said two respective powers by the first article of which treaty the said King George the Third by the name of his Britannic Majesty acknowledged the aforesaid United p104 States to be free sovereign and independent States that he treated with them as such and for himself his heirs and successors relinquishes all claim to the government propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof and by the second article of said treaty the western boundary of the United States is a line drawn along the middle of the River Mississippi until it shall intersect the northernmost part of the thirty first degree of north latitude and the southern boundary is a line drawn due east from the determination of the said line in the latitude of thirty one degrees north of the equator to the middle of the River Apalachicola or Catahouchee thence along the middle thereof to its junction with the Flint River thence straight to the head of St Mary s River and thence down along the middle of St Mary s River to the Atlantic Ocean And the jury further find that in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty two the Congress of the United States did instruct the said commissioners authorized on the part of the United States to negotiate and conclude the treaty aforesaid that they should claim in this negotiation respecting the boundaries of the United States that the most northern part of the thirty first degree of north latitude should be agreed to be the southern boundary of the United States on the ground that that was the southern boundary of the Colony of Georgia and that the River Mississippi should be agreed to be the western boundary of the United States on the ground that the Colony of Georgia and other colonies now States of the United States were bounded westward by that river and that the commissioners on the part of the United States did in said negotiation claim the same accordingly and that on those grounds the said southern and western boundaries of the United States were agreed to by the commissioners on the part of the King of Great Britain That afterwards in the same year the Legislature of the State of Georgia passed an act declaring her right and proclaiming her title to all the lands lying within her boundaries to the River Mississippi And in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred p105 and eighty five the Legislature of the said State of Georgia established a county by the name of Bourbon on the Mississippi and appointed civil officers for said county which lies within the boundaries now denominated the Mississippi territory that thereupon a dispute arose between the State of South Carolina and the State of Georgia concerning their respective boundaries the said States separately claiming the same territory and the said State of South Carolina on the first day of June in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty five petitioned the Congress of the United States for a hearing and determination of the differences and disputes subsisting between them and the State of Georgia agreeably to the ninth article of the then Confederation and perpetual Union between the United States of America that the said Congress of the United States did thereupon on the same day resolve that the second Monday in May then next following should be assigned for the appearance of the said States of South Carolina and Georgia by their lawful agents and did then and there give notice thereof to the said State of Georgia by serving the Legislature of said State with an attested copy of said petition of the State of South Carolina and said resolve of Congress That afterwards on the eighth day of May in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty six by the joint consent of the agents of said States of South Carolina and Georgia the Congress resolved that further day be given for the said hearing and assigned the fifteenth day of the same month for that purpose That afterwards on the eighteenth day of May aforesaid the said Congress resolved that further day be given for the said hearing and appointed the first Monday in September then next ensuing for that purpose That afterwards on the first day of September then next ensuing authorized agents from the States of Carolina and Georgia attended in pursuance of the order of Congress aforesaid and produced their credentials which were read in Congress and there recorded together with the acts of their respective legislatures which acts and credentials authorized the said agents to settle and compromise all the differences p106 and disputes aforesaid as well as to appear and represent the said States respectively before any tribunal that might be created by Congress for that purpose agreeably to the said ninth article of the Confederation And in conformity to the powers aforesaid the said commissioners of both the said States of South Carolina and Georgia afterwards on the 28th day of April in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven met at Beaufort in the State of South Carolina and then and there entered into signed and concluded a convention between the States of South Carolina and Georgia aforesaid By the first article of which convention it was mutually agreed between the said States that the most northern branch or stream of the River Savannah from the sea or mouth of such stream to the fork or confluence of the Rivers then called Tugaloo and Keowee and from thence the most northern branch or stream of said River Tugaloo till it intersects the northern boundary line of South Carolina if the said branch or stream of Tugaloo extends so far north reserving all the islands in the said Rivers Savannah and Tugaloo to Georgia but if the head spring or source of any branch or stream of the said River Tugaloo does not extend to the north boundary line of South Carolina then a west course to the Mississippi to be drawn from the head spring or source of the said branch or stream of Tugaloo River which extends to the highest northern latitude shall forever thereafter form the separation limit and boundary between the States of South Carolina and Georgia And by the third article of the convention aforesaid it was agreed by the said States of South Carolina and Georgia that the said State of South Carolina should not thereafter claim any lands to the eastward southward southeastward or west of the said boundary above established and that the said State of South Carolina did relinquish and cede to the said State of Georgia all the right title and claim which the said State of South Carolina had to the government sovereignty and jurisdiction in and over the same and also the right and preemption of soil from the native Indians and all the estate property and claim which the said State of South Carolina had in or to the said lands p107 And the jury further find that the land described in the plaintiff s declaration is situate southwest of the boundary line last aforesaid and that the same land lies within the limits of the territory granted to the said lords proprietors of Carolina by King Charles the second as aforesaid and within the bounds of the territory agreed to belong and ceded to the King of Great Britain by the said treaty of peace made in seventeen hundred and sixty three as aforesaid and within the bounds of the United States as agreed and settled by the treaty of peace in seventeen hundred and eighty three as aforesaid and north of a line drawn due east from the mouth of the said River Yazoos where it unites with the Mississippi aforesaid That afterwards on the ninth day of August in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven the delegates of said State of South Carolina in Congress moved that the said convention made as aforesaid be ratified and conformed and that the lines and limits therein specified be thereafter taken and received as the boundaries between the said States of South Carolina and Georgia which motion was by the unanimous vote of Congress committed and the same convention was thereupon entered of record on the journals of Congress and on the same day John Kean and Daniel Huger by virtue of authority given to them by the Legislature of said State of South Carolina did execute a deed of cession on the part of said State of South Carolina by which they ceded and conveyed to the United States in Congress assembled for the benefit of all the said States all their right and title to that territory and tract of land included within the River Mississippi and a line beginning at that part of the said River which is intersected by the southern boundary line of the State of North Carolina and continuing along the said boundary line until it intersects the ridge or chain of mountains which divides the

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0010_0087_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Florida v. Bostick
    seizure The appropriate test is whether taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter a reasonable passenger would feel free to decline the officers requests or otherwise terminate the encounter Pp 433 437 a A consensual encounter does not trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny See Terry v Ohio 392 U S 1 19 n 16 Even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual they may generally ask the individual questions Florida v Rodriguez 469 U S 1 5 6 ask to examine identification INS v Delgdo 466 U S 210 216 and request consent to search luggage Florida v Royer 460 U S 491 501 provided they do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required Thus there is no doubt that if this same encounter had taken place before Bostick boarded the bus or in the bus terminal it would not be a seizure Pp 434 435 b That this encounter took place on a bus is but one relevant factor in determining whether or not it was of a coercive nature The state court erred in focusing on the free to leave language of Michigan v Chesternut 486 U S 567 573 rather than on the principle that those words were intended to capture This inquiry is not an accurate measure of an encounter s coercive effect when a person is seated on a bus about to depart has no desire to leave and would not feel free to leave p430 even if there were no police present The more appropriate inquiry is whether a reasonable passenger would feel free to decline the officers request or otherwise terminate the encounter Thus this case is analytically indistinguishable from INS v Delgado supra There no seizure occurred when INS agents visited factories at

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0501_0429_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Florida v. J.L.
    and seized a gun from his pocket J L who was then almost 16 was charged under state law with carrying a concealed firearm without a license and possessing a firearm while under the age of 18 The trial court granted his motion to suppress the gun as the fruit of an unlawful search The intermediate appellate court reversed but the Supreme Court of Florida quashed that decision and held the search invalid under the Fourth Amendment Held An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not without more sufficient to justify a police officer s stop and frisk of that person An officer for the protection of himself and others may conduct a carefully limited search for weapons in the outer clothing of persons engaged in unusual conduct where inter alia the officer reasonably concludes in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons in question may be armed and presently dangerous Terry v Ohio 392 U S 1 30 Here the officers suspicion that J L was carrying a weapon arose not from their own observations but solely from a call made from an unknown location by an unknown caller The tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop It provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test the informant s knowledge or credibility See Alabama v White 496 U S 325 327 The contentions of Florida and the United States as amicus that the tip was reliable because it accurately described J L s visible attributes misapprehend the reliability needed for a tip to justify a Terry stop The reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality not

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0529_0266_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Florida v. Meyers
    STATES 466 U S 380 Florida v Meyers ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT No 83 1279 Argued Decided April 23 1984 At the time of respondent s arrest for sexual battery police officers searched his automobile and seized several items Approximately eight hours after the car was impounded an officer without obtaining a warrant searched the car a second time seizing additional evidence The Florida trial court denied respondent s motion to suppress the evidence seized during the second search and respondent was convicted The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed holding that even though respondent conceded that the initial search of the car was valid the second warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment because the car had been impounded removing the element of mobility Held The Fourth Amendment was not violated by the second search of respondent s car The justification to conduct a warrantless search of a car that has been stopped on the road based on probable cause to believe there is evidence of crime inside it does not vanish once the car has been impounded and immobilized Michigan v Thomas 458 U S 259 Certiorari

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0466_0380_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Ford v. Georgia
    for a new trial claiming among other things that his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury was violated by the prosecutor s racially based exercise of peremptory challenges The motion was denied and the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the conviction While Ford s first petition for certiorari was pending in this Court the Court decided Batson v Kentucky 476 U S 79 which dropped the Swain requirement of proof of prior discrimination by holding it possible for a defendant to make out a prima facie equal protection violation entirely by reference to the prosecution s use of peremptory challenges in the defendant s own case This Court ultimately vacated Ford s conviction and remanded in light of Griffith v Kentucky 479 U S 314 which decided that Batson s new evidentiary standard would apply retroactively in cases such as the present On remand the State Supreme Court concluded that before his trial Ford had raised a Swain claim that was decided adversely to him on appeal and could not be reviewed again The court then suggested that a Batson claim was never raised at trial but held sua sponte that any equal protection claim that Ford might have was untimely under the rule the court had stated in State v Sparks 257 Ga 97 98 355 S E 2d 658 659 which as interpreted by the court p412 requires that a contemporaneous objection to a jury be made under Batson in the period between the jurors selection and the administration of their oaths Although Sparks was decided long after Ford s trial the court regarded the Sparks rule as a valid state procedural bar to federal review of Ford s claim under Wainwright v Sykes 433 U S 72 Held The Sparks rule is not an adequate and independent state procedural ground that would bar federal judicial review of Ford s Batson claim Pp 418 425 a The State Supreme Court erred in concluding that Ford failed to present the trial court with a cognizable Batson equal protection claim Although Ford s pretrial motion did not mention the Equal Protection Clause and his new trial motion cited the Sixth Amendment rather than the Fourteenth the pretrial motion s reference to a pattern of excluding black venire members over a long period of time constitutes the assertion of an equal protection claim on the evidentiary theory articulated in Batson s antecedent Swain That the Georgia courts in fact adopted this interpretation is demonstrated by the prosecutor s citation to Swain in opposing the pretrial motion by the trial judge s clear implication of Swain in ruling that Ford had failed to prove the systematic exclusion of blacks from petit juries and by the State Supreme Court s explicit statement on remand that Ford had raised a Swain claim Because Batson did not change the nature of the violation recognized in Swain but merely the quantum of proof necessary to substantiate a particular claim it follows that a defendant alleging

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0498_0411_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Ford v. Wainwright
    the reports of the two psychiatrists who had previously examined petitioner but the Governor s office refused to inform counsel whether the submission would be considered The Governor subsequently signed a death warrant without explanation or statement After unsuccessfully seeking a hearing in state court to determine anew petitioner s competency his counsel filed a habeas corpus proceeding in Federal District Court seeking an evidentiary hearing but the court denied the petition without a hearing and the Court of Appeals affirmed Held The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II concluding that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the State from inflicting the death penalty upon a prisoner who is insane The reasons at common law for not condoning the execution of the insane that such an execution has questionable retributive value presents no example to others and thus has no deterrence value and p400 simply offends humanity have no less logical moral and practical force at present Whether the aim is to protect the condemned from fear and pain without comfort of understanding or to protect the dignity of society itself from the barbarity of exacting mindless vengeance the restriction finds enforcement in the Eighth Amendment Pp 405 410 JUSTICE MARSHALL joined by JUSTICE BRENNAN JUSTICE BLACKMUN and JUSTICE STEVENS concluded in Parts III IV and V that Florida s statutory procedures for determining a condemned prisoner s sanity provide inadequate assurance of accuracy to satisfy the requirement of Townsend v Sain 372 U S 293 and that having been denied a factfinding procedure adequate to afford a full and fair hearing on the critical issue as required by 28 U S C 2254 d 2 petitioner is entitled to a de novo evidentiary hearing in the District Court on the question of his competence to be executed Pp 410 418 a No state court has issued any determination to which the presumption of correctness under 2254 d could attach and indeed no state court played any role in the rejection of petitioner s claim of insanity P 410 b The first defect in Florida s procedures is the failure to include the prisoner in the truth seeking process Any procedure that precludes the prisoner or his counsel from presenting material relevant to his sanity or bars consideration of that material by the factfinder is necessarily inadequate A related flaw in the procedures is the denial of any opportunity to challenge or impeach the state appointed psychiatrists opinions thus creating a significant possibility that the ultimate decision made in reliance on those experts will be distorted And perhaps the most striking defect in the procedures is the placement of the ultimate decision wholly within the Executive Branch The Governor who appoints the experts and ultimately decides whether the State will be able to carry out the death sentence and whose subordinates have been responsible for initiating every stage of the prosecution cannot be said to

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0477_0399_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive



  •