Ochoa v. Hernandez Y Morales
Citations
- 230 U.S. 139
- 33 S. Ct. 1033
- 57 L. Ed. 1427
- 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2684
Syllabus
<p>Under § 35 of the Foraker Act, appeals from the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico are subject to the provisions applicable to appeals from the Supreme Courts of the Territories under thq act of April 7,1874, under which the jurisdiction of this court is confined, in a case where there are no errors assigned upon questions of evidence, to determining whether the findings of the court below support the judgment. Rosaly v. Graham, 227 U. S. 584.</p> <p>Even if the commanding officer in territory occupied by military forces of the United States has all the legislative power as to such territory possessed by Congress, he is still subject, as Congress is, to the provisions of the Fifth Amendment and cannot by military orders deprive persons of their property without due process of law.</p> <p>To shorten .the period for acquisition of title by prescription and give the order a retroactive effect so that the period has elapsed at the time the order is made without giving those who have interests in the property an opportunity to be heard and saving no existing rights, amounts to'taking .property without due process of law.</p> <p>The provision in the judicial order of General Henry published April 7, 1899, during the military occupation,of Porto Rico by the United States, reducing the period for prescriptive title to.real estate in that island from the periods previously established by law down to-six years with retroactive effect arid without any opportunity for third ■ parties to be hoard, amounted to' a deprivation of property of the actual owners without due process of law and was beyond the power of the Military'Governor;-nor was this provision ratified by any sub- . sequent action of Congress.</p> <p>The status of Porto Rico during the military occupancy and before the exchange of ratifications of the treaty of peace, was the same as that, of the Philippine Islands during the same period.</p> <p>From the exchange of ratifications -until Congress ac
Judges: Pitney
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
90 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. RadfordSupreme Court· 1935-05-27· cited 691×
- Tworivers v. LewisNinth Circuit· 1999-04-06· cited 437×
- Addison v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc.Supreme Court· 1944-06-12· cited 398×
- Michael Dwayne Brown v. Ronald Angelone, Jesse James Pritchard, Jr. v. Ronald Angelone, DirectorFourth Circuit· 1998-07-14· cited 171×
- Gean v. HattawaySixth Circuit· 2003-06-06· cited 150×
- Orlicki v. McCarthyIllinois Supreme Court· 1954-11-18· cited 135×
- Hess v. WesterwickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1950-11-13· cited 119×
- Mary E. Hammond, Individually and Mary E. Hammond as She is the of the Estate of Charles E. Hammond v. United StatesFirst Circuit· 1986-03-12· cited 94×
- Johnson v. PearceSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1975-04-24· cited 70×
- Dutton Phosphate Co. v. PriestSupreme Court of Florida· 1914-04-21· cited 67×
- Mosley v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.New Mexico Supreme Court· 1941-06-10· cited 61×
- Frank M. Ockerman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, (92-5265) v. May Zima & Company, (92-5266)Sixth Circuit· 1994-06-28· cited 53×
- United States v. Nebo Oil Co., IncFifth Circuit· 1951-08-04· cited 47×
- Bunker v. National Gypsum Co.Indiana Supreme Court· 1982-10-26· cited 47×
- Unnamed caseD.C. Circuit· 1960-03-24· cited 46×
- Theodosis v. Keeshin Motor Express Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1950-05-29· cited 41×
- Rabbitt v. Frank C. Weber & Co.Illinois Supreme Court· 1921-04-21· cited 39×
- Cobb v. United StatesNinth Circuit· 1951-08-27· cited 32×
- Ginsberg v. LindelEighth Circuit· 1939-11-28· cited 32×
- El Pueblo de Puerto Rico v. Sánchez ValleSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 2015-03-20· cited 32×
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Dooley v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1901-05-27· cited 186×
- Wilson v. IsemingerSupreme Court· 1902-04-07· cited 183×
- McGahey v. VirginiaSupreme Court· 1890-05-19· cited 121×
- Turner v. New YorkSupreme Court· 1897-10-18· cited 100×
- CROSS v. HarrisonSupreme Court· 1854-05-23· cited 89×
- Wheeler v. JacksonSupreme Court· 1890-11-24· cited 81×
- Leitensdorfer v. WebbSupreme Court· 1858-02-24· cited 59×
- MacLeod v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1913-06-10· cited 31×
- Northwestern Bank v. FreemanSupreme Court· 1898-10-24· cited 28×
- Santiago v. NoguerasSupreme Court· 1909-05-24· cited 17×
- Rosaly v. Graham Y FrazerSupreme Court· 1913-02-24· cited 16×
Sourced 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.