You are seeing our new document Reader view. Click here to revert. Feel free to leave us feedback on this feature .
×
  • Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Case:
 
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee
[14 U.S. 304] (1816) Facts: Lord Fairfax, a VA citizen, died and left his VA land to his nephew, Martin, a Britishcitizen, resident in England. VA claimed the property was theirs (b/c of state laws confiscatinglands owned by British subjects), and gave it to Hunter. Hunter brought a suit to eject Martinfrom the land, but VA district court found for Martin (b/cVA had not perfected title to land before giving it to Hunter, so status of land is subject to treaties - any land that had not yetescheated to the state it would belong to the British subject). But VA court of appeals reversed,holding that (1) the state's title to the party was perfected before existence of the treaty, andtherefore the treaty didn’t change anything (didn’t give title back to British subject), and(2) theAct of Compromise (1796)(VA state law settled ownership on this land for Hunter)settled thematter against Martin. The SC then reversed that decision, holding that state had not perfectedthe title, and so Martin still had the title, b/c of the treaty against confiscation. The case wasremanded to VA Court of appeals to enter judgment for Martin, but that court refused to obey,declaring that the SC had no right to review the decisions of state courts under the U.S.Constitution.
○
What's interesting is that SC never mentions the Act of Compromise, which Court of Appeals relies on as well (alternative theories on why land belongs to Hunter). Why wouldthey leave it out?
○
It's a state law claim, and a state law decision. SC only has jurisdiction when it's afederal question. The state claim (Act of Compromise) can go to fed court under supplemental jurisdiction. But usually, SC will abstain from taking the case altogether when there's a state ground that will also uphold the state court decision. Normally,court would not take the case. But it did, without mentioning the state claim.
○
Why does VA court think it can ignore the SC ruling?
○
Judiciary Act extends appellate jurisdiction of SC for fed questions. The VA court of appeals says that the section of the Judiciary Act is unconstitutional. B/c Constitutiondoes not give SC power to review state court decisions. Even if judiciary act wasvalid, should not have gone to SC, b/c Act of Compromise based on state law, so mustuphold state court decision. Issue: Whether the SC has the authority under the Constitution to review,for constitutionality,decision of state courts. - Yes. Reasoning:
○
Art III states:"The
judicial power shall extend to all cases
, in law and equity, arising under thisConstitution"
○
The judicial power extends to
all 
federal question cases. So why is it that SC can reviewstate court decisions on constitutionality?
○
So it has to cover all fed questions whether they arise in state or federal court
○
So if it's not there on original jurisdiction, then its there under appellate jurisdiction.
○
The SC must have power to say state court decisions are unconstitutional, and state courtmust listen to them
○
The jurisdiction is over the case, not the tribunal
○
So cases may arise in state or fed court. But it may also arise in an int'l court (for atreaty issue), and involves a fed question. Can SC take that case away from the int'ltribunal? NO. So Justice Story is wrong. ALL doesn’t mean all, b/c then it would
    of 00

    Leave a Comment

    You must be to leave a comment.
    Submit
    Characters: ...
    You must be to leave a comment.
    Submit
    Characters: ...