Supreme Court of the United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
EstablishedMarch 4, 1789; 233 years ago (1789-03-04)
LocationWashington, D.C.
Coordinates38°53′26″N 77°00′16″W / 38.89056°N 77.00444°W / 38.89056; -77.00444Coordinates: 38°53′26″N 77°00′16″W / 38.89056°N 77.00444°W / 38.89056; -77.00444
Composition methodPresidential nomination with Senate confirmation
Authorized byConstitution of the United States, Art. III, § 1
Judge term lengthlife tenure, subject to impeachment and removal
Number of positions9 (by statute)
Websitesupremecourt.gov

This is a list of cases reported in volume 259 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1922.

Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 259 U.S.

See also: List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States

See also: List of United States Supreme Court justices by time in office

See also: List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by court composition

The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices).[1] Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice).

When the cases in volume 259 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members:

Portrait Justice Office Home State Succeeded Date confirmed by the Senate
(Vote)
Tenure on Supreme Court
William Howard Taft 1909b.jpg
William Howard Taft Chief Justice Connecticut Edward Douglass White June 30, 1921
(Acclamation)
July 11, 1921

February 3, 1930
(Retired)
Joseph McKenna Associate Justice California Stephen Johnson Field January 21, 1898
(Acclamation)
January 26, 1898

January 5, 1925
(Retired)
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr circa 1930-edit.jpg
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Associate Justice Massachusetts Horace Gray December 4, 1902
(Acclamation)
December 8, 1902

January 12, 1932
(Retired)
Justice William R. Day.jpg
William R. Day Associate Justice Ohio George Shiras Jr. February 23, 1903
(Acclamation)
March 2, 1903

November 13, 1922
(Retired)
Willis Van Devanter.jpg
Willis Van Devanter Associate Justice Wyoming Edward Douglass White (as Associate Justice) December 15, 1910
(Acclamation)
January 3, 1911

June 2, 1937
(Retired)
Mahlon Pitney cph.3b30300.jpg
Mahlon Pitney Associate Justice New Jersey John Marshall Harlan March 13, 1912
(50–26)
March 18, 1912

December 31, 1922
(Resigned)
Jamescmcreynolds.jpg
James Clark McReynolds Associate Justice Tennessee Horace Harmon Lurton August 29, 1914
(44–6)
October 12, 1914

January 31, 1941
(Retired)
Brandeisl.jpg
Louis Brandeis Associate Justice Massachusetts Joseph Rucker Lamar June 1, 1916
(47–22)
June 5, 1916

February 13, 1939
(Retired)
John Hessin Clarke cph.3b09252.jpg
John Hessin Clarke Associate Justice Ohio Charles Evans Hughes July 24, 1916
(Acclamation)
October 9, 1916

September 18, 1922
(Retired)

Notable cases in 259 U.S.

Child Labor Tax Case

In Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20 (1922), the Supreme Court ruled that the 1919 Child Labor Tax Law was unconstitutional as an improper attempt by Congress to penalize employers using child labor. The Court concluded that the "tax" imposed by the statute was not a tax, but a penalty in disguise.

Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs

Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U.S. 200 (1922), is a antitrust decision in which the Supreme Court ruled the Sherman Antitrust Act did not apply to Major League Baseball because baseball was not deemed to be interstate commerce. This decision is the main reason why MLB has not faced any competitor leagues since 1922 and MLB, to date, remains the only professional sports league in the United States with such an antitrust exemption.[2][3]

Ng Fung Ho v. White

In Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276 (1922), the Supreme Court held that habeas corpus petitioners are entitled to a de novo judicial hearing to adjudicate claims that they are citizens of the United States.

Citation style

See also: United States district court

See also: United States court of appeals

See also: United States federal courts

Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 the federal court structure at the time comprised District Courts, which had general trial jurisdiction; Circuit Courts, which had mixed trial and appellate (from the US District Courts) jurisdiction; and the United States Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the federal District and Circuit courts—and for certain issues over state courts. The Supreme Court also had limited original jurisdiction (i.e., in which cases could be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first having been heard by a lower federal or state court). There were one or more federal District Courts and/or Circuit Courts in each state, territory, or other geographical region.

The Judiciary Act of 1891 created the United States Courts of Appeals and reassigned the jurisdiction of most routine appeals from the district and circuit courts to these appellate courts. The Act created nine new courts that were originally known as the "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals." The new courts had jurisdiction over most appeals of lower court decisions. The Supreme Court could review either legal issues that a court of appeals certified or decisions of court of appeals by writ of certiorari. On January 1, 1912, the effective date of the Judicial Code of 1911, the old Circuit Courts were abolished, with their remaining trial court jurisdiction transferred to the U.S. District Courts.

Bluebook citation style is used for case names, citations, and jurisdictions.

List of cases in volume 259 U.S.

Case Name Page & year Opinion of the Court Concurring opinion(s) Dissenting opinion(s) Lower Court Disposition
British Columbia et al. Co. v. Mylroie 1 (1922) Taft none none 9th Cir. affirmed
Atherton Mills v. Johnston 13 (1922) Taft none none W.D.N.C. reversed
Bailey v. George 16 (1922) Taft none none W.D.N.C. reversed
Child Labor Tax Case 20 (1922) Taft none none W.D.N.C. affirmed
Hill v. Wallace 44 (1922) Taft Brandeis none N.D. Ill. reversed
American S. & R. Co. v. United States 75 (1922) Holmes none none Ct. Cl. affirmed
Grogan v. Hiram Walker & Sons, Ltd. 80 (1922) Holmes none McKenna E.D. Mich. multiple
South Covington et al. R.R. Co. v. City of Newport 97 (1922) McReynolds none none E.D. Ky. reversed
Newton v. Consolidated G. Co. 101 (1922) McReynolds none none S.D.N.Y. reversed
Union T. Co. v. Wilson 107 (1922) Brandeis none none 9th Cir. affirmed
Heald v. District of Columbia 114 (1922) Brandeis none none D.C. Cir. affirmed
Pierce O. Corp. v. Phoenix R. Co. 125 (1922) Clarke none none Okla. affirmed
Ewert v. Bluejacket 129 (1922) Clarke none none 8th Cir. multiple
Kendall v. Ewert 139 (1922) Clarke none none 8th Cir. reversed
Rainier B. Co. v. Great N.P.S.S. Co. 150 (1922) Clarke none none 9th Cir. affirmed
Continental Ins. Co. v. United States 156 (1922) Taft none none E.D. Pa. affirmed
California Ind. Acc. Comm'n v. Davis 182 (1922) McKenna none none Cal. Ct. App. reversed
Morrisdale C. Co. v. United States 188 (1922) Holmes none none Ct. Cl. affirmed
Pine Hill C. Co. v. United States 191 (1922) Holmes none none Ct. Cl. affirmed
Santa Fe & P.R.R. Co. v. Fall 197 (1922) Holmes none none D.C. Cir. reversed
Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs 200 (1922) Holmes none none D.C. Cir. affirmed
Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Liebing 209 (1922) Holmes none none Mo. affirmed
United States v. Southern P. Co. 214 (1922) Day none McKenna D. Utah reversed
Miles v. Safe D. & T. Co. 247 (1922) Pitney none none D. Md. affirmed
Carlisle Packing Co. v. Sandanger 255 (1922) McReynolds none none Wash. affirmed
Olin v. Kitzmiller 260 (1922) McReynolds none none 9th Cir. affirmed
New York Ind. Comm'n v. Nordenholt Corp. 263 (1922) McReynolds none none N.Y. Sup. Ct. reversed
Ng Fung Ho v. White 276 (1922) Brandeis none none 9th Cir. multiple
Great N.R.R. Co. v. Merchants E. Co. 285 (1922) Brandeis none none Minn. affirmed
Fidelity & D. Co. v. United States 296 (1922) Brandeis none none Ct. Cl. remanded
Fidelity T. & T. Co. v. United States 304 (1922) Brandeis none none Ct. Cl. affirmed
Collins v. Loisel 309 (1922) Brandeis none none E.D. La. affirmed
City of Houston v. Southwest B.T. Co. 318 (1922) Clarke none none S.D. Tex. affirmed
United States ex rel. French v. Weeks 326 (1922) Clarke none none D.C. Cir. affirmed
United States ex rel. Creary v. Weeks 336 (1922) Clarke none none D.C. Cir. affirmed
United M.W. v. Coronado C. Co. 344 (1922) Taft none none 8th Cir. reversed
Ex parte Harley-Davidson Motor Co. 414 (1922) Day none none 3d Cir. mandamus granted
Wyoming v. Colorado 419 (1922) VanDevanter none none original riparian rights set
Weiland v. Pioneer I. Co. 498 (1922) Clarke none none 8th Cir. affirmed
Ward & Gow v. Krinsky 503 (1922) Pitney none McReynolds N.Y. Sup. Ct. affirmed
Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek 530 (1922)\ Pitney none none Mo. Ct. App. affirmed
Chicago et al. R.R. Co. v. Perry 548 (1922) Pitney none none Okla. affirmed
Lipke v. Lederer 557 (1922) McReynolds none Brandeis E.D. Pa. reversed
Georgia v. South Carolina 572 (1922) per curiam none none original boundary set

Notes and references

  1. ^ "Supreme Court Research Guide". Georgetown Law Library. Retrieved April 7, 2021.
  2. ^ Belth, Alex (November 26, 2001). "Ending Baseball's Antitrust Exemption: What Would It Mean?". Baseball Prospectus. Retrieved November 10, 2021. Baseball is the only major sport that has an exemption from antitrust law.
  3. ^ Calcaterra, Craig (May 29, 2019). "Happy birthday to baseball's antitrust exemption". NBC Sports. Retrieved November 10, 2021. What is still in place, firmly, is Major League Baseball’s ability to work to thwart competitors, if any ever arise, and its ability to carve out protected geographic territories for its clubs and anti-competitive contract rights for its clubs.