PARMELEE
v.
LAWRENCE
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 held that to exercise jurisdiction over a state court decision under Section 25 of the Judiciary Act, the federal constitutional question must appear clearly on the face of the record itself—in the pleadings, evidence, or court rulings—and cannot be established solely by a certificate from the state court or by counsel's arguments. The Court affirmed that a certificate may only clarify questions already evident in the record but cannot create jurisdiction where none exists in the record's plain terms.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.
In Lawler et al. v. Walker et al.
†
it is said that the 25th section of the Judiciary Act required something more definite than the certificate of the Supreme Court to give this court jurisdiction.
The conflict of the State law with the Constitution of the United States, and a decision by a State court in favor of its validity, must appear on the face of the record before it can be re-examined in this court. It must appear in the pleadings of the suit, or from the evidence in the course of the trial, in the instructions asked for, or from exceptions taken to the rulings of the court. It must be that such a question was necessarily involved in the decision, and that the State court would not have given a judgment without deciding it. The decision in this case was approved, and applied in Railroad Company v. Rock. The certificate was as full in that case as in the present, but it was the only evidence of the fact that a Federal question had been presented.
The judge, in delivering the opinion of the court in that case, observed that “ it is probable that counsel in the argument of the case in the Supreme Court of Iowa, insisted that these matters were involved, and that the chief justice felt bound to certify, when requested, that they were drawn iii question. But if the record,” he proceeds, “ does not show that they were necessarily drawn in question, this court cannot take jurisdiction to reverse the decision of the highest court of a State upon the ground that counsel brought them in question in argumeut.” We will add, if this court should entertain jurisdiction upon a certificate alone in the absence of any evidence of the question in the record, then the Supreme Court of the State can give the jurisdiction in every case where the question is made by counsel in the argumeut. The office of the certificate, as it respects the Federal question, is to make more certain and specific what is too general aifd indefinite in the record, but is incompetent to originate the question within the true construction of the 25th section.
Motion to dismiss granted.
†
14 Howard, 152.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Sayward v. Denny, 158 U.S. 180 (U.S. 1895)…cord upon which action is taken here. Butler v. Gage, 138 U. S. 52, and cases cited. 5, Nor do the arguments of counsel, though the opinions of the [*184] state courts are now made such by rule. Gibson v. Chouteau, 8 Wall. 314; Parmelee v. Lawrence, 11 Wall. 36; Gross v. U. S. Mortgage Co., 108 U. S. 477, 484; United States v. Taylor, 147 U. S. 695, 700. 6. The right on which the party relies must have been called to the attention of the court, in some proper way, and the decision of the court must have…
-
Honeyman v. Hanan, 300 U.S. 14 (U.S. 1937)…ad held the statutes to be valid. The certificate in that case was found to be vague and indefinite but the Court also restated the above-quoted ruling of Commercial Bank of Cincinnati v. Buckingham’s Executors, supra. While in Parmelee v. Lawrence, 11 Wall. 36, the certificate was made, by the presiding judge of the state court and not by the court itself, we took occasion to say: “We will add, if this court should entertain jurisdiction upon a certificate alone in the absence of any evidence of the ques…
-
Powell v. Brunswick Cnty., 150 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1893)…ur interposition may be successfully invoked is always regarded with respect, it cannot confer jurisdiction upon this court to reexamine-the judgment below. Lawler v. Walker, 14 How. 149 ; Railway Company v. Rock, 4 Wall. 477 ; Parmelee v. Lawrence, 11 Wall. 36 ; Caperton v. Bowyer, 14 Wall. 216 ; Brown v. Atwell, 92 U. S. 327 ; Gross v. United States Mortgage Co., 108 U. S. 477; Felix v. Scharnweber, 125 U. S. 54; Roby v. Colehour, 146 U. S. 153. In Parmelee v. Lawrence, Mr. Justice Nelson, speaking for…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence