Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, which is granted to the US Congress by the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, encompasses the power to regulate navigation.
Chief Justice John Marshall first envisioned the dormant commerce clause doctrine in his 1824 opinion in Gibbons v.Ogden. The idea that regulation of interstate commerce may to some extent be an exclusive Federal power was discussed even before adoption of the Constitution.
The General Survey Act was a law passed by the United States Congress in April 1824, which authorized the president to have surveys made of routes for transport roads and canals "of national importance, in a commercial or military point of view, or necessary for the transportation of public mail."
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) was another influential case involving the supremacy clause. The state of New York had granted Aaron Ogden a monopoly over the steamboat business in the Hudson River. The other party, Thomas Gibbons, had obtained a federal permit under the Coastal Licensing Act to perform the same task. The Supreme Court upheld the ...
Johnson v. McIntosh (1823): In an opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall, the court held that private parties could not validly purchase land from Native Americans. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): In an opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall, the court struck down a New York law that had granted a monopoly on steamship operation in the state of ...
Summary Talbot v. Seeman: 5 U.S. 1 (1801) Marine salvage rights in time of war Marbury v. Madison: 5 U.S. 137 (1803) judicial review of laws enacted by the United States Congress: Stuart v. Laird: 5 U.S. 299 (1803) enforceability of rulings issued by judges who have since been removed from office Murray v. The Charming Betsey: 6 U.S. 64 (1804)
Following the Civil War, railroads became recipients of federal funding; funding for river and harbor improvements increased sharply.The 1869 appropriations for rivers and harbors exceeded $2 million, and rapidly grew to tens of millions of dollars per year by the close of the 19th century; the Rivers and Harbors Acts between 1869 and 1930 are illustrative.
[7] Although the Gibbons Court declined to decide the question, 140 years later the Supreme Court confirmed Wirt's view in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. [8] In June 1830, a delegation of Cherokee led by Chief John Ross selected Wirt on the urging of Senators Webster and Frelinghuysen to defend Cherokee rights before the U.S. Supreme Court.