WALTON
v.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA ET AL.
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.
A federal district court dismissed an equity suit seeking to enjoin Oklahoma's impeachment proceedings against a state officer on grounds that the impeachment was motivated by prejudice and would deny due process. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that federal courts of equity lack jurisdiction over the appointment and removal of state officers, regardless of whether the removal occurs through impeachment proceedings.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit in equity brought in a District Court of the United States to enjoin the prosecution of articles of impeachment against a state officer. The plaintiff is the officer against whom the articles are directed, and the principal defendants are officers designated to conduct the prosecution before the Chief Justice and Senate of the State sitting as a court of impeachment. The allegations of the bill are very general, wanting in precision and usually made on information and belief. In substance the grounds on which the injunction is sought are that the articles of impeachment were prompted by wrongful motives and prejudice on the part of most of the members of the House of Representatives of the State; that many members of the Senate who will sit in the court of impeachment have the same wrongful motives and prejudice, and will be controlled by them instead of by the evidence; and that to subject the plaintiff to a trial before a body so constituted will work a denial of the due process and equal protection to which he is entitled under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In the District Court the defendants challenged the bill by a motion to dismiss, and after a hearing on that motion the court entered a decree of dismissal. The plaintiff appealed to this Court.
The trial before the court of impeachment proceeded, and the plaintiff was found guilty on some of the articles and removed from office. While the impeachment proceeding was in an early stage, its validity was sustained by the Supreme Court of the State, State v. Chambers, 96 Okla. 78; and, after the proceeding was carried to judgment, petitions for certiorari were denied by that court and by this Court, 263 U. S. 721.
We think the District Court rightly dismissed the bill. A court of equity has no jurisdiction over the appointment and removal of public officers, White v. Berry, 171 U. S. 366; and particularly are the courts of the United States sitting as courts of equity without jurisdiction over the appointment and removal of state officers. In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200, 210. And see Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U. S. 548, 570. That the removal is through a proceeding in the nature of a criminal prosecution does not alter the rule. In re Sawyer, supra, pp. 210, 219.
Decree affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
L. Maxcy, Inc. v. Mayo, 103 Fla. 552 (Fla. 1931)…ierce Oil Co. v. Hope, 248 U. S. 498, 38 Sup. Ct. 172, 73 L. Ed. 381, 127 Ark. 28, 191 S. W. 405, Ann. Cas. 1918-E 143; Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365, 47 Sup. Ct. 114, 71 L. Ed. 303; Everhards Breweries v. Day, 265 U. S. 545, 44 Sup. Ct. 628, 68 L. Ed. 1174. But the doctrine justifying the inclusion of what may be termed innocent acts, can be applied only as a necessary means to a legitimate end. Such inclusion must be reasonably required for the accomplishment of the legislative inten…
-
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1962)…ld be deprived of his life, liberty or property in violation of the provisions of the Federal Constitution.” Wilson v. North Carolina, 169 U. S. 586, 596. See Taylor and Marshall v. Beckham (No. 1), 178 U. S. 548; Walton v. House of Representatives, 265 U. S. 487; Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U. S. 1. Cf. In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200, 220-221. Where, however; state law has made particular federal questions determinative of relations within the structure of state government, not in .challenge of it, the Court has…1 / 2
-
Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268 (U.S. 1939)…ion board in the respective counties a list of the voters who voted at. the election in November, 1914, and such list shall be conclusive evidence of the right of such person to vote.” See also, In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200; Walton v. House of Rep., 265 U. S. 487; 4 Pomeroy, Equity § 1743 et seq.; Pound, Equitable Relief Against Defamation and Injuries to Personality, 29 HaRV. L. Rev. 640, 681. “Ii the sections of the constitution concerning registration were illegal in their inception, it would be a new do…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (U.S. 1923)
- Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1923)
- Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333 (U.S. 1866)
- Cummings v. The State of Mo., 4 Wall. 277 (U.S. 1866)
- Home Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 227 U.S. 278 (U.S. 1913)
- In re Sawyer and Others, 124 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1888)
- Taylor and Marshall v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1900)
- Kennard v. Louisiana ex rel. Morgan, 92 U.S. 480 (U.S. 1875)
- Foster v. Kansas, 112 U.S. 201 (U.S. 1884)
- Missouri v. Andriano, 138 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1891)