IN RE WOODS, PETITIONER
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.
In this case, the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari review of a Circuit Court of Appeals decision involving Minnesota law on res judicata and employer liability. The Court held that under the 1891 Act establishing the Circuit Courts of Appeals, certiorari review could only be granted when questions of grave national importance were involved, and that state law questions regarding whether a prior dismissal barred a subsequent suit and the application of servant-injury law did not meet this threshold. The decision reinforced that the Circuit Courts of Appeals were created to reduce the Supreme Court's docket burden, and supervisory review through certiorari was reserved for matters of significant legal or international consequence.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Fullee delivered the opinion of the court.
In Lau Ow Bew, Petitioner, 141 U. S. 583, it was held that the power of this court to require a case in which the judgment and decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is made final, to be certified for review and determination, as if it had been brought here on appeal or writ' of error, could only be properly invoked under section six of the act of Congress entitled “ An act to establish Circuit Courts of Appeals and to define and regulate in certain cases' the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, and for other purposes,” approved March 3, 1891, (26 Stat. 826, 828, c. 517,) when questions of gravity and importance were involved.
This must necessarily be so in any view, and especially • when it is considered that the Circuit Courts of Appeals were created for-the purpor 3 of relieving this court of the. oppres- . sive burden of general litigation, which impeded the examination and disposition of cases of public concern, and delayed •suitors in the pursuit of justice.
But in the interest of jurisprudence and uniformity of decision, to use the language of the eminent jurist and statesman who had charge of the bill, provision was made under section six for such supervision on our part, as would tend to avert diversity of judgments and guard against inadvertence of conclusion in controversies involving weighty-and serious matters. _
In the matter of Lau Ow JBew, the construction of acts of Congress in the light of treaties with a foreign government,- and the status of domicil in respect of natives-of one country domiciled.in another, a matter of international concern, were brought under consideration upon the record, and we were of opinion that the grounds of the application. were sufficient to call for our interposition.
But we do not regard the inquiry as to whether it was settled law in the State of Minnesota that a judgment of dismissal in a former suit, such as pleaded heré, was not a bar to a second suit upon the same cause of action, or whether the law in respect of recovery by a servant against his-master for injuries received in the course of his employment was properly-applied on the trial of this case, as falling within the category of questions of such gravity and general importance as to require the review of the conclusions of the Circuit Court of Appeals in reference to them.
The writ of certiora/ri is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dick v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 359 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1959)…03-3405, 10220-10222; 22 Cong. Rec. 3585. Ibid. 26 Stat. 828. 21 Cong. Rec. 10221. 26 Stat. 828. See the expressions of the necessity of restraint in granting writs of certiorari which the Court voiced in Lau Ow Bew, 141 U. S. 583; In re Woods, 143 U. S. 202; Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U. S. 47; American Construction Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. Co., 148 U. S. 372; Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U. S. 506; Fields v. United States, 205 U. S. 292; United States v. Rimer, 220 U. S. 547. On March 27, 1…
-
Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Bros. & Co., 240 U.S. 251 (U.S. 1916)…. As has been many times declared, this is a jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly, and only in cases of peculiar gravity and general importance, or in order to secure uniformity of decision. Lau Ow Bew, Petitioner, 141 U. S. 583, 587; In re Woods, 143 U. S. 202; Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U. S. 47, 58; Amer. Const. Co. v. Jacksonville Ry., 148 U. S. 372, 383; Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U. S. 506, 514; Fields v. United States, 205 U. S. 292, 296. And, except in extraordinary cases, the writ is not issued…
-
Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U.S. 47 (U.S. 1892)…was passed to facilitate the prompt disposition of cases in this court and to relieve it from the .oppressive burden of general litigation, which impeded the examination of cases of public concern, and operated to the delay of suitors. In re Woods, 143 U. S. 202. [*56] By section 4, “ the review, by appeal, by writ of error, or otherwise, from the existing Circuit Courts shall be had only in the Supreme Court of the United States or in the Circuit Courts of Appeals hereby established according to the provis…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- LAU OW BEW, 141 U.S. 583 (U.S. 1891)