No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
State Constitutional Law in 1935–36
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
There is a kernel of truth in Chief Justice Hughes' remark that “we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.” To realize its full significance, “constitution” must be written in the plural. We have forty-nine courts of last resort, each interpreting the fundamental law of its own jurisdiction. The essential similarity of our state constitutions, and of our state bills of rights to that of the national constitution, together with the tendency of common law courts to follow each other's decisions, lend an element of stability to American state constitutional law that otherwise would be lacking. At the same time, even within so short a period as a year, the interplay of personalities may be seen moulding new doctrines in particular jurisdictions, which doctrines take on added significance because of the realization that they may, in time, serve as a basis for redirecting the course of constitutional development in other jurisdictions as well.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1936
References
1 Mrs. G. G. Bell, research assistant in political science, gave invaluable aid in the preliminary analysis of cases for this article. They were selected from those reported in the advance sheets from April, 1935, to May, 1936. Unless otherwise indicated, the decision was rendered by the court of last resort of the state concerned.
2 See note, “State Legislation in Support of the N.I.R.A.” (1934), 34 Columbia Law Rev. 1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. the Model State Recovery Law prepared by the N.R.A., 3 Federal Trade and Industry Service 60,011; N.R.A. Release No. 3,243, Feb. 12, 1934.
3 Ex parte Lasswell, 36 P. (2d) 678 (Sept., 1934), discussed in this Review, Vol. 29, p. 611.
4 See Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 421, (1879); Clark Distilling Company v. Western Md. Ry., 242 U. S. 311 (1917); Whitfield v. Ohio, 56 Sup. Ct. 532 (1936).
5 In re Burke, 190 Cal. 326, 328 (1923).
6 See Opinion of the Justices, 239 Mass. 606 (1921); State v. Intoxicating Liquors, 121 Me. 438 (1922); 34 Columbia Law Rev. 1077 (1934)Google Scholar; 33 Michigan Law Rev. 597 (1935)Google Scholar.
7 Chas. Uhden, Inc. v. Greenough, 43 P. (2d) 983, 988 (April, 1935). In the companion case of Griffiths v. Robinson, 43 P. (2d) 977, 979, decided the same day, the court erroneously stated that in the Uhden case it had held this section of the act unconstitutional. Neither case involved a national code.
8 Darweger v. Staats, 196 N. E. 61 (April, 1935).
9 295 U. S. 495 (1935), discussed in this Review, Vol. 30, p. 58.
10 See Ex parte Downing, 47 P. (2d) 322 (Cal. App., June, 1935).
11 262 N. W. 492, 497 (Nebr., Sept., 1935).
12 Gibson Auto Co. v. Finnegan, 259 N.W. 420 (March, 1935), discussed in this Review, Vol. 29, p. 611.
13 State v. Dusha, 198 N. E. 735 (Ohio App., Jan., 1935); Van Winkle v. Meyer, 49 P. (2d) 1140 (Ore., Oct., 1935); In re Interrogatories of the Governor, 51 P. (2d) 695 (Colo., Oct., 1935).
14 State v. Matson Co., 47 P. (2d) 1003 (July, 1935). The court held that all rules governing the payment of assessments to support code enforcement fell with the act, and that middlemen might retain all sums deducted to meet such assessments from payments made to producers.
15 In re State, 264 N. W. 633 (Jan., 1936).
16 Smithberger v. Banning, supra note 11.
17 Crane v. Frohmiller, 45 P. (2d) 955 (June, 1935).
18 Getty v. Gaffy, 44 P. (2d) 506 (April, 1935).
19 State v. Grosjean, 161 So. 871 (La., April, 1935), is particularly interesting because the “standard” by which the governor was to be guided was virtually identical with that of the recovery acts. And see Wiseman v. Phillips, 84 S. W. (2d) 91, 94 (Ark., June, 1935); State v. Stark, 52 P. (2d) 890 (Mont., July, 1935); Acme Refining Co. v. State, 86 S. W. (2d) 507 (Tex. Civ. App., Sept., 1935); State v. Yelle, 48 P. (2d) 573 (Wash., Sept., 1935).
20 State v. Combs, 194 N. E. 875 (March, 1935).
21 Cox v. McNutt, 12 F. Supp. 355 (Oct., 1935).
22 Hearon v. Calus, 183 S. E. 13 (Dec., 1935).
23 See my “The Lanza Rule of Successive Prosecutions” (1932), 32 Columbia Law Rev. 1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 See my “The Bill of Rights and Criminal Law Enforcement” (1934), 175 Annals Amer. Acad. 205CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Immunity From Compulsory Self-lncrimination in a Federal System of Government” (1934–1935), 9 Temple Law Quar. 57, 194Google Scholar.
25 46 P. (2d) 382 (Okla. Cr., June, 1935).
26 81 S. W. (2d) 419 (Ark., May, 1935). There being no federal question involved, a writ of certiorari was refused. 56 Sup. Ct. 136 (1935).
27 State Tax Commission v. Baltimore National Bank, 180 A. 160 (June, 1935), sustained, but on different grounds, in 56 Sup. Ct. 417 (1936).
28 Illinois Power and Light Corp. v. City of Centralia, 11 F. Supp. 874 (E. D. I11., Aug., 1935).
29 Menominee & Marinette Light and Traction Co. v. City of Menominee, 11 F. Supp. 989 (W. D. Mich., Aug., 1935).
30 See In re Whittington, 34 Cal. App. 344 (1917).
31 Ex parte Martin, 52 P. (2d) 1196 (Dec., 1935).
32 160 So. 552 (Ala., Dec., 1934). The ordinance was subsequently held void because it had not been published as required by law. 160 So. 549 (Ala. App., Feb., 1935).
33 Winters v. Bisaillon, 54 P. (2d) 1169 (Feb., 1936).
34 Helmer v. Superior Court, 48 Cal. App. 140 (1920), followed in Ex parte Daniels, 183 Cal. 636 (1920).
35 City of San José v. Lynch, 52 P. (2d) 919 (Cal., Dec., 1935).
36 Newman v. Watkins, 182 S. E. 453 (Nov., 1935), followed in Hill v. Board of Commissioners, 182 S. E. 709 (Dec., 1935).
37 See his article under that title in 80 Univ. of Penna. Law Rev. 17, 233 (1931)Google Scholar.
38 Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616 (1886).
39 Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 (1914).
40 46 P. (2d) 962 (Okla. Cr., June, 1935).
41 48 P. (2d) 355 (Okla. Cr., Aug., 1935).
42 52 P. (2d) 1085 (Okla. Cr., Dec., 1935). And see Pickle v. State, 160 So. 909 (Miss., April, 1935), where the officer was on land owned by the defendant when he saw the still located on a second piece of land rented by him. The officer was held to be a trespasser because the search warrant had been issued upon insufficient evidence (an anonymous letter received through the mail).
43 Adams v. New York, 192 U. S. 585.
44 Supra note 38.
45 See Weeks v. United States, supra note 39.
46 83 S. W. (2d) 87 (Mo., March, 1935).
47 Oden v. State., 165 So. 404 (Ala. App., Jan., 1936); State v. Carol, 181 A. 714 (Conn., Dec., 1935); Fitzgerald v. State, 182 S. E. 77 (Ga. App., Oct., 1935).
48 196 N. E. 439 (I11., April, 1935).
49 83 S.W. (2d) 338 (Tex. Cr., May, 1935).
50 Brigman v. State, 82 S. W. (2d) 955 (Tex. Cr., May, 1935).
51 State v. Thomas, 49 P. (2d) 28 (Sept., 1935): “Where the accused is arrested in his home or place of residence, a search of the home or place of residence may be lawfully made for evidence of his guilt. In this instance, the defendant was on his way to his place of residence when arrested, and the fact that he was caught before he reached the place ought not to require the application of a different rule.”
52 State v. Christensen, 51 P. (2d) 835 (Nov., 1935). All of these states follow the rule that illegally secured evidence is inadmissible. The Oregon quotation, however, was taken from People v. Mayen, 188 Cal. 237 (1922), which rejected this rule as one unduly favoring the criminal.
53 People v. Szobor, 195 N. E. 648 (April, 1935).
54 United States v. Gilbert, 25 Fed. Cas. No. 15, 204 (1834).
55 160 So. 485 (March, 1935).
56 50 P. (2d) 97 (Cal. App., Oct., 1935).
57 See my “Penal Ordinances in California” (1936), 24 Calif. Law Rev. 123CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Municipal Ordinances Supplementing Criminal Laws” (1936), 9 So. Calif. Law Rev. 95Google Scholar.
58 Caneperi v. State, 89 S. W. (2d) 164 (Jan., 1936). Compare Coffey v. United States, 116 U. S. 436 (1886). For an interesting discussion of the plea of res judicata as a supplement in criminal cases to the pleas of autrefois acquit, autrefois convict, and former jeopardy, see State v. Coblentz, 180 A. 266 (Md., July, 1935).
59 People v. Bellinger, 199 N. E. 213 (Dec., 1935).
60 See this Review, Vol. 25, p. 980.
61 State v. Camby, State v. Crump, and State v. Hill, 182 S. E. 715, 716 (Dec., 1935).
62 See 20 Calif. Law Rev. 145, note (1932)Google Scholar.
63 State v. Zabrocki, 260 N. W. 507 (April, 1935).
64 48 P. (2d) 902 (Utah, Sept., 1935).
65 Gange Lumber Co. v. Henneford, 53 P. (2d) 743 (Jan., 1936).
66 Coca Cola Bottling Works v. Harvey, 198 N. E. 782 (Dec., 1935).
67 161 So. 123 (April, 1935).
68 290 U. S. 398 (1934), discussed in this Review, Vol. 29, p. 54.
69 199 N. E. 85 3 (Ohio App., April, 1935).
70 Annenberg v. Coleman, 163 So. 405 (Oct., 1935).
71 State v. Freeman, 55 P. (2d) 362 (March, 1935). As counsel based their claim under the federal Constitution on the First Amendment rather than the Fourteenth, there is no appeal from this decision. There were dozens of similar errors during the year. Apparently Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Peters 243 (U. S., 1833), is still relatively unknown to the profession.
72 People v. Immonen, 261 N. W. 59 (May, 1935).
73 Nebbia v. New York, 291 U. S. 502, discussed in this Review, Vol. 29, p. 45.
74 Reynolds v. Milk Commission, 177 S. E. 44, discussed in this Review, Vol. 29, p. 621.
75 179 S. E. 507.
76 Rohrer v. Milk Control Board, 184 A. 133 (March, 1936).
77 State v. Lincoln Dairy Co., 265 N. W. 197 (Feb., 1936).
83 [No footnotes 78–82] 180 S. E. 220 (Ga., May, 1935).
84 Bennett v. Wheatley, 154 Ga. 591.
85 Bennett v. Schwartz, 154 Ga. 885. (1923).
86 260 N. W. 647 (April, 1935).
87 Ex parte Johns, 88 S. W. (2d) 709 (Dec., 1935).
88 People v. Perretta, 253 N. Y. 305 (1930).
89 Nebbia v. New York, 291 U. S. 502, 622 (1934).
90 State v. Old Tavern Farm, 180 A. 473 (July, 1935).
91 162 So. 162 (Miss., May, 1935).
92 49 P. (2d) 752 (Okla., Sept., 1935).
93 Born v. Fulton County, 181 S. E. 106 (Ga. App., July, 1935).
94 Snoffer v. City of Los Angeles, 43 P. (2d) 852 (May, 1935); McCandless v. City of Los Angeles, 47 P. (2d) 1103 (Aug., 1935).
95 49 P. (2d) 98 (Okla., Sept., 1935).
96 See the cases discussed supra, pp. 699, 706.
97 Schuster & Co. v. Henry, 261 N. W. 20 (June, 1935); oertiorari denied, 56 Sup. Ct. 148 (1935). Cf. Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. Lewis, 294 U. S. 550 (1935).
98 City of Douglas v. South Georgia Grocery Co., 179 S. E. 768 (April, 1935).
99 Wiseman v. Phillips, 84 S. W. (2d) 91 (June, 1935).
100 See the case discussed supra, p. 7.
101 Riggins v. District Court, 51 P. (2d) 645 (Nov., 1935).
102 Martin v. Board of Commissioners of Wake County, 180 S. E. 777 (.June, 1935).
103 Martin v. City of Raleigh, 180 S. E. 786 (June, 1935).
104 Opinion of the Justices, 195 N. E. 897 (May, 1935).
105 Berman v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, 196 N.E. 464 (I11., April, 1935).
106 City of Cleveland v. Ruple, 200 N. E. 507 (Ohio, Feb., 1936).
107 82 S. W. (2d) 37 (Mo., April, 1935).
108 Calerdine v. Freiberg, 195 N. E. 854 (May, 1935).
109 Massachusetts v. Mellon and Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447 (1923). See the present writer's analysis of this whole problem in “Commerce, Production, and the Fiscal Powers of Congress” (1936), 45 Yale Law Jour. 751, 991CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
110 For current examples of taxpayers' suits, see the cases cited supra, notes 102, 103, 105, 106; McGinty v. Pickering, 179 S. E. 358 (Ga., March, 1935); Behrle v. Board of Education of St. Bernard, 200 N. E. 523 (Ohio App., June, 1935).
111 Smithberger v. Banning, supra, note 11, was such a suit.
112 Ramsey v. Hamilton, 182 S. E. 392 (Oct., 1935).
113 Newman v. Watkins, 182 S. E. 453 (Nov., 1935).
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.