Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

EMPIRE STATE-IDAHO MINING AND DEVELOPING COMPANY v. HANLEY (1907)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
EMPIRE STATE-IDAHO MINING AND DEVELOPING COMPANY v. HANLEY
Term: 1906
Important Dates
Argued: February 1, 1907
Decided: March 25, 1907
Outcome
Petition denied or appeal dismissed
Vote
9-0
Majority
David Josiah BrewerWilliam Rufus DayMelville Weston FullerJohn Marshall HarlanOliver Wendell HolmesJoseph McKennaWilliam Henry MoodyRufus Wheeler PeckhamEdward Douglass White

EMPIRE STATE-IDAHO MINING AND DEVELOPING COMPANY v. HANLEY is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 25, 1907. The case was argued before the court on February 1, 1907.

In a 9-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case. The case originated from the Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1900s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Fuller Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Judicial Power - no merits: dismissed or affirmed for want of jurisdiction (cf. judicial administration: Supreme Court jurisdiction or authority on appeal from federal district courts or courts of appeals)
  • Petitioner: Mining company or miner, excluding coal, oil, or pipeline company
  • Petitioner state: Unknown
  • Respondent type: Owner, landlord, or claimant to ownership, fee interest, or possession of land as well as chattels
  • Respondent state: Unknown
  • Citation: 205 U.S. 225
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Writ of error
  • What type of decision was made: Opinion of the court (orally argued)
  • Who was the chief justice: Melville Weston Fuller
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: William Rufus Day

These data points were accessed from The Supreme Court Database, which also attempts to categorize the ideological direction of the court's ruling in each case. This case's ruling was categorized as conservative.

See also

External links

Footnotes