Know your vote. Take a look at your sample ballot now!

JAMES D'ARCY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. MORRIS KETCHUM, THOMAS ROGERS, AND EDWARD BEMENT, COPARTNERS, TRADING UNDER THE NAME AND FIRM OF KETCHUM, ROGERS, AND BEMENT (1851)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
JAMES D'ARCY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. MORRIS KETCHUM, THOMAS ROGERS, AND EDWARD BEMENT, COPARTNERS, TRADING UNDER THE NAME AND FIRM OF KETCHUM, ROGERS, AND BEMENT
Term: 1850
Important Dates
Argued: February 4, 1851
Decided: February 25, 1851
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
John CatronPeter Vivian DanielRobert Cooper GrierJohn McKinleyJohn McLeanSamuel NelsonRoger Brooke TaneyJames Moore WayneLevi Woodbury

JAMES D'ARCY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. MORRIS KETCHUM, THOMAS ROGERS, AND EDWARD BEMENT, COPARTNERS, TRADING UNDER THE NAME AND FIRM OF KETCHUM, ROGERS, AND BEMENT is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 25, 1851. The case was argued before the court on February 4, 1851.

In a 9-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. The case originated from the Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1850s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Taney Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Economic Activity - Liability, other than as in sufficiency of evidence, election of remedies, punitive damages
  • Petitioner: Defendant
  • Petitioner state: Unknown
  • Respondent type: Injured person or legal entity, nonphysically and non-employment related
  • Respondent state: Unknown
  • Citation: 52 U.S. 165
  • 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: Roger Brooke Taney
  • Who wrote the majority opinion: John Catron

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