BERRY ET AL., CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF PAROLE OF IOWA, ET AL.
v.
DAVIS

U.S. | 1917-01-15
No. 47
242 U.S. 468 Supreme Court of the United States (1917) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 61 L. Ed. 441 · 37 S. Ct. 208 · SCDB 1916-189 · 1917 U.S. LEXIS 2168
Cited by 65 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

Davis sought to enjoin Iowa state officials from performing a vasectomy on him pursuant to an Iowa sterilization statute that had ordered the procedure based on his two prior felony convictions. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's preliminary injunction and dismissed the case as moot because Iowa had repealed the 1913 sterilization statute in 1915, eliminating any threat of the operation being performed on Davis, making the case no longer justiciable.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Holmes

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.

' This is a bill to enjoin the State Board of Parole and the warden and physician of the state penitentiary at Fort Madison, from performing vasectomy upon the plaintiff, •the defendant in error, in pursuance of ah Iowa statute approved April 19, 1913. 35 G. A., c. 187, § 1. Supplement to Code 1913, c. 19-B, § 2600-p. This act among other things directed the operation to be performed upon convicts in the penitentiary who had been twice convicted of felony, and on February 14, 1914, the Board had ordered it, upon the ground that the plaintiff had been twice so convicted. The bill was filed on March 11, 1914.

On April 15, 1914, following an opinion of the Attorney General that both felonies must have been committed after the passage of the act, the order was laid on the table, and the warden and physician made affidavits, filed on April 22, that the operation would not be performed by them.

Nevertheless, three judges, disregarding the fore going opinion and action, proceeded to issue a preliminary-injunction as prayed in the bill. 216 Fed. Rep. 413.

An appeal was taken to this court in 1914. In 1915 the Act of 1913 was repealed, and the substituted act does not apply to the plaintiff. Supplemental Supplement to the Code of Iowa, 1915, c. 19-B, § 2600-sl. All possibility or threat of the operation has disappeared now, if not before, by the act of the State. Therefore upon the precedents we are not called upon to consider the propriety of the action of the District Court, but the proper course is to reverse the decree and remand the cause with directions that the bill be dismissed without costs to either party; United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U. S. 466, 475, 478; Jones v. Montague, 194 U. S. 147, 153; Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U. S. 115, 120; Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 658.

Decree reversed. Bill to be dismissed without costs to either party.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (22 total)

  • United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1950)
    …different cause of action.” This has become the standard disposition in federal civil cases: New Orleans Flour Inspectors v. Glover, 161 U. S. 101, 103, modifying 160 U. S. 170; United States v. Hamburg-American Co., 239 U. S. 466; Berry v. Davis, 242 U. S. 468; United States v. American-Asiatic Steamship Co., 242 U. S. 537; Board of Public Utility Commissioners v. Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas, 249 U. S. 425; Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U. S. 360; United States v. Alaska [*40] Steamsh…
  • POE v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1961)
    …Kimball, 174 U. S. 158; Tennessee v. Condon, 189 U. S. 64; American Book Co. v. Kansas, 193 U. S. 49; Jones v. Montague, 194 U. S. 147; Security Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Prewitt, 200 U. S. 446; Richardson v. McChesney, 218 U. S. 487; Berry v. Davis, 242 U. S. 468; Atherton Mills v. Johnston, 259 U. S. 13. Mr. Justice Brandeis, concurring, in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 341, 347. The Mellon cases involved what is technically designated as the problem of “standing,” but the concer…
  • Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1921)
    …o., 18 How. 421, 431-432. See, also, United States v. The Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch, 103, 110; Sampeyreac v. United States, 7 Pet. 222, 239-240; Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 653; Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U. S. 115, 120; Berry v. Davis, 242 U. S. 468, 470. The Clayton Act, in § 1, includes the Sherman Act in a definition of “anti-trust laws,” and, in § 16 (38 Stat. 737), gives to private parties a right to relief by injunction in any court of the United States against threatened loss or [*465]…

Previewing 3 of 22 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