SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY
v.
ITSELL

U.S. | 1890-01-20
No. 1506
133 U.S. 65 Supreme Court of the United States (1890) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 33 L. Ed. 570 · 10 S. Ct. 241 · 1890 U.S. LEXIS 1890 · SCDB 1889-092
Cited by 27 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

San Francisco City and County sought Supreme Court review of a state court judgment, but the Court dismissed the writ of error for lack of jurisdiction because the state court's decision rested solely on a question of general law regarding whether a prior judgment constituted a bar to the action, rather than on any federal constitutional, treaty, or statutory question. The Court reaffirmed that it lacks authority to review state court judgments unless a federal question has been decided against the party seeking review.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Me.: Justice Geat,

Me.: Justice Geat,

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

.This court has.no jurisdiction to review a judgment of the highest-court of a State, unless-a federal question has been, either in express terms Or-by necessary effect, decided by that court against -the plaintiff in error. Rev. Stat. § 709; New Orleans Waterworks v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co., 125, U. S. 18; De Saussure v. Gaillard, 127 U. S. 216; Hale v. Akers, 132 U. S. 554.

In the'present case, the record of the pleadings, findings of fact and judgment shows that it was unnecessary for that court to decide, and its opinion filed in the case and copied in the record shows that it did not decide, any question against the plaintiff in error, except the issue whether the former judgment rendered against it and in favor of the grantor of the defendants in error was a bar to this action. That was a question of general law only, in nowise depending upon the Constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States. Chouteau v. Gibson, 111 U. S. 200.

Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (14 total)

  • Cent. Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1895)
  • O'Neil v. Vermont, 144 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1892)
    …ssary effect was to deny that right, or where it proceeded, in part, upon another and distinct ground, not involving a Federal question, but sufficient, in itself, to maintain the judgment without reference to that question. San Francisco v. Itsell, 133 U. S. 65, 66; Beaupré v. Noyes, 138 U. S. 397, 401. Now, it may be true, as I think it is, under the facts of this case, that the title to the liquors sold by O’Neil did not pass, and he did not intend it should pass, from him upon the delivery to the expres…
    1 / 2
  • California v. Holladay, 159 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1895)
    …The Chief Justice: The opinions of the Supreme Court of California in this case are reported 68 California, 439; 93 California, 241; 102 California, 661. The motion to dismiss is sustained on the authority of San Francisco v. Itsell, 133 U. S. 65; Beatty v. Benton, 135 U. S. 244; Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361; and cases cited. And see Hoadley v. San Francisco, 94 U. S. 4; Hoadley v. San Francisco, 124 U. S. 639. Writ of error dismissed.…

Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw