Stearns v. Wood
Citations
- 236 U.S. 75
- 35 S. Ct. 229
- 59 L. Ed. 475
- 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1816
Syllabus
<p>The province of courts is to decide real controversies and not to discuss abstract propositions; and this court cannot be called upon to construe orders, acts of Congress and provisions of the Constitution for the information of persons whose rights are not directly affected or threatened, notwithstanding their laudable feeling of deep interest in the general subject.</p> <p>An officer of the National Guard whose personal rights are not directly-violated or interfered with and whose present rank remains unchanged thereby cannot, in this court, question the validity and constitutionality of the General Order contained in Circular No. 8 issued by the Secretary of War pursuant to § 3 of the Military Law, act of January 21, 1903, c. 196, 32 Stat. 775, as amended by act of May 27, 1908, e. 204, 35 Stat. 399, relative to the organization, armament and discipline of the organized militia, and orders of the Adjutant General of Ohio with respect to the mobilization of the National Guard of that State and commanding that upon any declaration of war all furloughs be revoked and the officers and soldiers shall assemble and proceed wherever directed by the President of the United States, whether within or without the United States.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “The province of courts is to decide real controversies, not to discuss abstract propositions.”
- “The province of courts is to decide real controversies, not to discuss abstract propositions.”
- “The province of courts is to decide real controversies, not to discuss abstract propositions.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McReynolds
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Baker v. CarrSupreme Court· 1962-03-26· cited 6,173×
- O'Shea v. LittletonSupreme Court· 1974-01-15· cited 3,578×
- Poe v. UllmanSupreme Court· 1961-10-09· cited 1,202×
- Barrows v. JacksonSupreme Court· 1953-06-15· cited 940×
- Coleman v. MillerSupreme Court· 1939-06-05· cited 641×
- Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co.Supreme Court· 1940-04-29· cited 545×
- Estado Libre Asociado v. AguayoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1958-06-27· cited 432×
- United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien GesellschaftSupreme Court· 1916-01-10· cited 185×
- Texas v. Interstate Commerce CommissionSupreme Court· 1922-03-06· cited 106×
- Hammond-Knowlton v. United StatesSecond Circuit· 1941-06-24· cited 70×
- National Maritime Union of America v. HerzogDistrict of Columbia· 1948-06-21· cited 34×
- Abrams v. Van SchaickSupreme Court· 1934-11-19· cited 31×
- Fortson v. ToombsSupreme Court· 1965-01-18· cited 25×
- United States v. International Union, United Mine Workers of AmericaD.C. Circuit· 1951-04-12· cited 23×
- Nancy Corinne Dyer and J. Raymond Dyer v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Union Electric Company, Acorporation, Intervenor-RespondentEighth Circuit· 1958-02-25· cited 14×
- Spreckels Sugar Co. v. WickardDistrict of Columbia· 1941-11-18· cited 10×
- Stark v. WickardD.C. Circuit· 1943-06-14· cited 7×
- Delilah B. BLANKS, Appellant, v. Wilbur REGISTER Et Al., AppelleesFourth Circuit· 1974-03-26· cited 6×
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Federal Trade CommissionSixth Circuit· 1937-11-05· cited 5×
- Otis v. International Mercantile Marine Co.Ninth Circuit· 1938-03-22· cited 2×
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.