HAGAR
v.
CALIFORNIA
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.
The Supreme Court dismissed a writ of certiorari in a case involving state tax assessment proceedings because no federal question was actually raised and decided by the lower court, only potential state constitutional issues. The Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review state court judgments unless a federal question was affirmatively raised in the pleadings and either decided or necessarily involved in the judgment below, not merely capable of arising.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court'.
It nowhere appears from this record that any Federal question was actually decided by the court below. None is specifically made by the pleadings, and we cannot find that any was raised under the general allegations in the answer or demurrer. The whole defence seems to have been predicated upon a supposed repugnancy between the law authorizing the assessment and the state constitution, and upon certain alleged irregularities in the proceedings under the law. It is not enough that a Federal question might have been raised. We have no jurisdiction unless it actually was raised and either decided or necessarily involved in the judgment pronounced. Mr. Justice Story, in Crowell v. Randall, 10 Peters, 368, decided in 1836, after reviewing all the cases down to that time, thus states the rule: “It is not sufficient to show that a question might have arisen or been applicable to the case, unless it is further shown, on the record, that it did arise and was applied by the state court to the case.” To the same effect is Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 558.
The motion to dismiss is granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Consol. Tpk. Co. v. Norfolk & Ocean View Ry. Co., 228 U.S. 326 (U.S. 1913)…nces here merely by suggesting for the first time when he takes his writ of error that the decision is wrong under the Constitution of the United States, Crowell v. Randell, 10 Pet. 367, 398; Simmerman v. Nebraska, 116 U. S. 54; Hagar v. California, 154 U. S. 639; Erie Railroad v. Purdy, 185 U. S. 148, 153.” The ground upon which the claim was asserted to compensation for the improvements placsd upon the land by the Bay Shore Company was the common-law principle that permanent structures placed upon the rea…
-
Pike Rapids Power Co. v. Minneapolis, 106 F.2d 891 (8th Cir. 1939)…Dist., 223 U.S. 519, 32 S.Ct. 246, 56 L.Ed. 533. It is equally well settled that an appeal from a decree purporting to be entered on mandate brings up for reexamination only the proceedings subsequent to the mandate. Stewart v. Salamon, 97 U.S. 361, 24 L.Ed. 1044; United States v. Camou, 184 U.S. 572, 22 S.Ct. 515, 46 L.Ed. 694. The opinion of this, court became the law of the case and is not open for reconsideration on this second appeal. This court' allowed plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of expenditu…
-
United States ex rel. Charles Townsend v. Ogilvie, 360 F.2d 925 (7th Cir. 1966)…6] sidered an abuse of the writ, we are limited to determining whether the district court complied with the mandate. Since its order was entered in exact accordance with the mandate, this appeal cannot be maintained. Stewart v. Salamon, 97 U.S. 361, 24 L.Ed. 1044 (1878); Lack v. Western Loan & Bldg. Co., 155 F. 2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1946). The appeal is dismissed. . For tlie history of this litigation, relating primarily to the question of the voluntariness of a confession of murder for which the petitioner…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532 (U.S. 1874)
- Crowell v. Randell, 10 Pet. 368 (U.S. 1836)