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

W. AND H. MASSINGILL, PLAINTIFFS, v. A.C. DOWNS, CLAIMANT (1849)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Seal of the Supreme Court of the United States
W. AND H. MASSINGILL, PLAINTIFFS, v. A.C. DOWNS, CLAIMANT
Term: 1849
Important Dates
Argued: February 22, 1849
Decided: March 13, 1849
Outcome
Certification to or from a lower court
Vote
9-0
Majority
John CatronPeter Vivian DanielRobert Cooper GrierJohn McKinleyJohn McLeanSamuel NelsonRoger Brooke TaneyJames Moore WayneLevi Woodbury

W. AND H. MASSINGILL, PLAINTIFFS, v. A.C. DOWNS, CLAIMANT is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 13, 1849. The case was argued before the court on February 22, 1849.

The U.S. Supreme Court examined the lower court's certified question. The case originated from the Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi.

For a full list of cases decided in the 1840s, click here. For a full list of cases decided by the Taney Court, click here.

[1]

About the case

  • Subject matter: Federalism - federal pre-emption of state legislation or regulation. cf. state regulation of business. rarely involves union activity. Does not involve constitutional interpretation unless the Court says it does.
  • Petitioner: Owner, landlord, or claimant to ownership, fee interest, or possession of land as well as chattels
  • 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: 48 U.S. 760
  • How the court took jurisdiction: Certification
  • 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 McLean

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 liberal.

See also

External links

Footnotes