IN RE VIDAL
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 denied an application for certiorari review of proceedings from a military tribunal established by the commanding general in Puerto Rico that sought to remove Vidal from municipal office. The Court held that it lacked power to review military tribunal proceedings by certiorari, as such tribunals were not courts within the meaning of the Constitution, and that in any event Congress had discontinued the tribunal and established a federal district court as its successor before the application could be acted upon.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an application for leave to file a petition for certiorari to review the proceedings of a tribunal established by a General Order, numbered 88, of Brigadier-General Davis, of the United States Army, then commanding the department of Porto Rico and the supreme military authority in that island, in the nature of a quo warranto to oust Vidal and others from the municipal offices of the town of G-uayama. The application was submitted April 23, 1900, and, as usual, time was given for a brief in opposition, which was presented April 30.
Section 716 of the Revised Statutes brought forward from section M of the Judiciary Act of 1789, provides: “The Supreme Court and the Circuit and District Courts shall have power to issue writs of scire facias. They shall also have power to issue' all writs not specifically provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
This court is not thereby empowered to review the proceedings of military tribunals by certiorari. Nor are such tribunals courts with jurisdiction in law or equity within the meaning of those terms as used in the third Article of the Constitution, and the question of the issue of the writ of certiorari in the exercise of inherent general power cannot arise in respect of them.
By act of Congress of April 12,1900,31 Stat. 77, c. 191, taking effect by its terms on the first of May, the tribunal in question was, as the act states, discontinued, and a United States District Court established as its successor, authorized to take possession of its records and to take jurisdiction of all cases and proceedings pending therein.
• The result is, from either point of view, that this application cannot be entertained.
Leave denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (30 total)
-
Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1953)…her hearing in the District Court. Accordingly its judgment must be Affirmed. Mr. Justice Jackson concurs in the result. 28 U. S. C. § 2241. See In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1, 8 (1946). See Dynes v. Hoover, 20 How. 65, 82 (1858); cf. In re Vidal, 179 U. S. 126 (1900); Reaves v. Ainsworth, 219 U. S. 296 (1911); Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1 (1942). See, e. g., In re Grimley, 137 U. S. 147 (1890); Hiatt v. Brown, 339 U. S. 103 (1950). See 62 Stat. 627 (revised Articles of War), 64 Stat. 107 (the Uniform Co…
-
Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1975)…” United States v. Augenblick, 393 U. S. 348, 349-353 (1969); Secretary of the Navy v. Avrech, supra. Cf. Warner v. Flemings, decided together with Gosa v. Mayden, 413 U. S. 665 (1973). See also In re Yamashita, 327 U. S. 1, 8 (1946); In re Vidal, 179 U. S. 126 (1900). Cf. Crawford v. United States, 380 U. S. 970 (1965) (motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari to Court of Military Appeals denied). Restatement of Judgments § 11 (1942); F. James, Civil Procedure § 11.5 (1965). Compare Ashe…
-
Ex parte Quirin v. Cox, 317 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1942)…onstitution familiar parts of the machinery for criminal trials in the civil courts. But they were procedures unknown to military tribunals, which are not courts in the sense of the Judiciary Article, Ex parte Vallandigham, 1 Wall. 243; In re Vidal, 179 U. S. 126; cf. Williams v. United States, 289 U. S. 553, and which in the natural course of events are usually called upon to function under conditions precluding resort to such procedures. As this Court has often recognized, it was not the purpose or effect…
Previewing 3 of 30 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence