What facts of the case were presented to the court of the case Marbury v. Madison?
153512
Marbury v. Madison (1803)\nJust as George Washington helped shape the actual form that the executive branch would take, so the third chief justice, John Marshall, shaped the role that the courts would play.\n\nUnder the administrations of Washington and his successor, John Adams, only members of the ruling Federalist Party were appointed to the bench, and under the terms of the Constitution, they held office for life during "good behavior." Thus, when the opposing Republicans won the election of 1800, the Jeffersonians found that while they controlled the presidency and Congress, the Federalists still dominated the judiciary. One of the first acts of the new administration was to repeal the Judiciary Act of 1800, which had created a number of new judgeships. Although President Adams had attempted to fill the vacancies prior to the end of his term, a number of commissions had not been delivered, and one of the appointees, William Marbury, sued Secretary of State James Madison to force him to deliver his commission as a justice of the peace.\n\nThe new chief justice, John Marshall, understood that if the Court awarded Marbury a writ of mandamus (an order to force Madison to deliver the commission) the Jefferson administration would ignore it, and thus significantly weaken the authority of the courts. On the other hand, if the Court denied the writ, it might well appear that the justices had acted out of fear. Either case would be a denial of the basic principle of the supremacy of the law.\n\nMarshall's decision in this case has been hailed as a judicial tour de force. In essence, he declared that Madison should have delivered the commission to Marbury, but then held that the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus exceeded the authority allotted the Court under Article III of the Constitution, and was therefore null and void. Thus he was able to chastise the Jeffersonians and yet not create a situation in which a court order would be flouted.\n\nThe critical importance of Marbury is the assumption of several powers by the Supreme Court. One was the authority to declare acts of Congress, and by implication acts of the president, unconstitutional if they exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution. But even more important, the Court became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document meant. As such, the Supreme Court became in fact as well as in theory an equal partner in government, and it has played that role ever since.\n\nThe Court would not declare another act of Congress unconstitutional until 1857, and it has used that power sparingly. But through its role as arbiter of the Constitution, it has, especially in the twentieth century, been the chief agency for the expansion of individual rights. (See Part V.)\n\nFor further reading: George L. Haskins and Herbert A. Johnson, Foundations of Power: John Marshall, 1801-1815 (1981); Donald O. Dewey, Marshall v. Jefferson: The Political Background of Marbury v. Madison (1970).\n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMarbury v. Madison\nChief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.\n\nAt the last term on the affidavits then read and filed with the clerk, a rule was granted in this case, requiring the Secretary of State to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, directing him to deliver to William Marbury his commission as a justice of the peace for the county of Washington, in the district of Columbia.\n\nNo cause has been shown, and the present motion is for a mandamus. The peculiar delicacy of this case, the novelty of some of its circumstances, and the real difficulty attending the points which occur in it, require a complete exposition of the principles on which the opinion to be given by the court is founded. . . .\n\nIn the order in which the court has viewed this subject, the following questions have bee
54770
Yes. District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals\n\nWEEKS v. U S , 245 U.S. 618 (1918)\n\nThis was a prosecution under the Act of June 30, 1906, c. 3915, 34 Stat. 768, upon a charge of shipping an article of food in interstate commerce in circumstances making the shipment a violation of the act. The information contained two counts, both charging that the article was misbranded-one because it bore a false and misleading label, and the other because it was offered for sale as lemon oil when in truth it was an imitation thereof containing alcohol and citral derived from lemon grass. In the District Court there was a conviction upon both counts, and the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction as [245 U.S. 618, 620] to the first count and affirmed it as to the second. 224 Fed. 64, 139 C. C. A. 626. The judgment upon the latter is all that is brought here for review.\n\nIn the Circuit Court of Appeals the view was expressed [245 U.S. 618, 623] that intent was not an element of the offense charged in the second count and therefore that it was immaterial whether the representations of the salesman had the sanction of the defendant. Complaint is now made of this. But the question is not in the case, the view expressed by the Circuit Court of Appeals not being essential to an affirmance of the judgment. The District Court had expressly instructed the jury that to hold the defendant responsible criminally by reason of such representations it must appear, and appear beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were made by his authority. The record before us does not show that the defendant objected to the submission of this question to the jury in this way; neither does it purport to contain all the evidence. The verdict therefore must be taken as conclusively determining that the representations were made with the defendant's sanction.\n\nJudgment affirmed
749069
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04 \n                                                                                      05
44213
For the general public using the internet Find Law is an excellent site to study case opinions for the United States Supreme Court as well as the State Supreme Courts.\n\nhttp://my.findlaw.com/\n\nRandy
854448
Certiorari granted; 35 Wis. 2d 146, 150 N. W. 2d 507, reversed.\n\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=390&invol=519
250216
is a landmark case in United States law, the basis for the exercise of judicial review of Federal statutes by the United States Supreme Court as a constitutional power. The Court ruled that it had the power to declare void a statute which it considered repugnant to the United States Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall presided over the case, and used the case to legally establish the right of the judiciary—and in particular, the Supreme Court— to overrule the actions of coequal branches of government and thus laid the basis for the current power of the Supreme Court.
168235
U.S. Supreme Court\nHAMMER v. DAGENHART\n 247 U.S. 251 (1918)\nDecided June 3, 1918.\n\nMr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court. \nA bill was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina by a father in his own behalf and as next friend of his two minor sons, one under the age of fourteen years and the other between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years, employes in a cotton mill at Charlotte, North Carolina, to enjoin the enforcement of the act of Congress intended to prevent interstate commerce in the products of child labor. Act Sept. 1, 1916, 39 Stat. 675.... \nThe attack upon the act rests upon three propositions: First: It is not a regulation of interstate and foreign commerce; second: It contravenes the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution; third: It conflicts with the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. \nThe controlling question for decision is: Is it within the authority of Congress in regulating commerce among the states to prohibit the transportation in interstate commerce of manufactured goods, the product of a factory in which, within thirty days prior to their removal therefrom, children under the age of fourteen have been employed or permitted to work, or children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years have been employed or permitted to work more than eight hours in any day, or more than six days in any week, or after the hour of 7 o'clock p. m., or before the hour of 6 o'clock a. m.? \nThe power essential to the passage of this act, the government contends, is found in the commerce clause of the Constitution which authorizes Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states. \nIn Gibbons v. Ogdon, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for this court, and defining the extent and nature of the commerce power, said, 'It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed.' In other words, the power is one to control the means by which commerce is carried on, which is directly the contrary of the assumed right to forbid commerce from moving and thus destroying it as to particular commodities. But it is insisted that adjudged cases in this court establish the doctrine that the power to regulate given to Congress incidentally includes the authority to prohibit the movement of ordinary commodities and therefore that the subject is not open for discussion. The cases demonstrate the contrary. They rest upon the character of the particular subjects dealt with and the fact that the scope of governmental authority, state or national, possessed over them is such that the authority to prohibit is as to them but the exertion of the power to regulate.... \nIn each of these instances the use of interstate transportation was necessary to the accomplishment of harmful results. In other words, although the power over interstate transportation was to regulate, that could only be accomplished by prohibiting the use of the facilities of interstate commerce to effect the evil intended. \nThis element is wanting in the present case. The thing intended to be accomplished by this statute is the denial of the facilities of interstate commerce to those manufacturers in the states who employ children within the prohibited ages. The act in its effect does not regulate transportation among the states, but aims to standardize the ages at which children may be employed in mining and manufacturing within the states. The goods shipped are of themselves harmless. The act permits them to be freely shipped after thirty days from the time of their removal from the factory. When offered for shipment, and before transportation begins, the labor of their production is over, and the mere fact that they were intended for interstate commerce transportation does not make their production subject to federal control under the commerce power. \nCommerce 'consists of intercourse and traffic ... and includes the transportation
649231
About facts on the Supreme Court,check\n\nhttp://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0875894.html\n\nhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,622,00.html\n\nhttp://www.constitutionfacts.com/Supreme_ct/Supreme_ct.htm
655640
VII. John Marshall and Judicial Nationalism \n    A. Marshall most important chief justice in U.S. history (1801-1835) \n        1. Significantly strengthened the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803) and other \n            cases. \n        2. His decisions greatly increased power of the federal government over the states. \n            a. Strengthened the union and helped create a stable, nationally uniform environment for \n                business. \n            b. Checked excesses of the popularly elected state legislatures. \n            c. Ironically, his decisions at times hampered democracy at a time when America was \n                become much more democratic during the Jacksonian era.
911735
Court?  City?  State?
596110
The 11th circuit does not have information on cases that far back online. You would need to contact the clerk there to request a copy of the ruling.
904812
Uh Lawyer Here--Do your own homework, start by reading the case, then look for comentary on it.  Also, you only got 2 days to do this?  Sounds like you left it to the last minute.  The case has to do with the remoteness of damages in contract and is related to the much earlier case of Hadley v. Baxendale.  \n\nA simple Google search has pulled up a scholarly article on this case--why is it that you couldn't do the same? Of course, I don't have access to the full article....
70508
also try www.westlaw.com\ngo to the law library.....they could help you cite the case to make it easier!
440826
In a law library. The cite is 7 N.J.Super. 81. A reference librarian should be able to help you find a reporter that includes the case.
1118110
Munn Vs. illinois a case decided by U.S. Supreme Court  citation is 94 U.S. 113 : 24 L Ed. 77 (1876). search it and read it
205888
Majority opinion can be found here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0163_0537_ZO.html\n\nDissenting opinion here: see above
900356
No.  But it was promised because of their complaints that the Consitution lacked basic protections.  It was drafted by James Madison