Brickhouse v. Brooks
Citations
- 165 F. 534
- 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5408
Syllabus
<p>1. Courts (§ 282*) — Jurisdiction op Federal Courts — Federal Question.</p> <p>An action against election officers to recover damages for the wrongful rejection of plaintiff’s vote for a member of Congress is one arising under the Constitution of the United States, and is within the jurisdiction of - a federal court, where the damages are laid at more than $2,000.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 820; Dec. Dig. § 282.*</p> <p>Jurisdiction in cases involving federal question, see notes to Bailey v. Mosher, 11 C. C. A. 30S; Montana Ore Purchasing Co. v. Boston & M. C. C. & S. Min. Co., 35 C. C. A. 7.]</p> <p>2. Courts (§ 328*) — Jurisdiction op Federal Courts — Amount in Controversy.</p> <p>In an action under Rev. St. § 1979 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262), to recover damages for depriving plaintiff of rights secured to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States under color of a state statute or law, the plaintiff is not required to allege that defendants acted maliciously, and a failure to do so does not authorize the court to determine as matter of law that only nominal damages are recoverable, and that therefore the action is not within the jurisdiction of a federal court.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 890; Dec. Dig. § 328.*</p> <p>Jurisdiction of federal courts as determined by the amount in controversy, see notes to Auer v. Lombard, 19 C. C. A. 75; Tennent-Stribling Shoe Co. v. Roper, 36 C. C. A. 459.]</p> <p>3. Constitutional Law (§ 68*) — Judicial Powers — Political Questions— Adoption op Constitution.</p> <p>Whether a state Constitution was duly ordained by the people of the state is a political question, and where it has been promulgated and recognized as valid and in force by the executive and legislative departments of the state, and accepted and acquiesced in by the people, the legality of its adoption cannot be brought in question in a federal court.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.- — For other
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- where a change in address was allowed because the defendant’s identity did not change and the defendant had been aware that the accident had occurred on its property
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Goff
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.