pageok
pageok
pageok
Little-Known Weird Legal Fact Leads to Glitch in Court of Appeals Opinion:

The glitch is at the start of this paragraph from Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. ENC Corp., handed down May 4 by the Ninth Circuit:

The phrase "equity and good conscience" in our judicial usage is coterminous with the first opinions of the United States Supreme Court. See Hollingsworth v. Ogle, 1 U.S. 257 (1788). Undoubtedly in its earlier usage, equity brought to mind a fairness sought by the chancery courts that transcended statutory law and "good conscience" referred to an interior moral arbiter regarded as the voice of God. As the phrase has become domesticated and invoked in modern times, see, Montana v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 523 U.S. 696, 707 (1998), the distinction of its two elements has blurred, and it has a secular rather than religious cast. Still, its unique appearance in Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure emphasizes the flexibility that a judge may find necessary in order to achieve fairness and the moral weighing that should attend the judge's choice of solutions, a choice to be marked by "mercy and practicality." Hecht v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329 (1944).

Some careful readers might notice that the Hollingsworth cite gives a year of 1788, and conclude that this is an error, since the U.S. Constitution didn't go into effect until 1789 and the U.S. Supreme Court didn't sit until 1790.

But Hollingsworth is indeed a case from the April 1788 Term -- it's just not a case from the April 1788 Term of the United States Supreme Court. Volume 1 of U.S. Reports is occupied entirely by cases from Pennsylvania; Hollingsworth is a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, as the printed volume and LEXIS report (though WESTLAW erroneously calls it a United States Supreme Court case). Volumes 2 and 3 of U.S. Reports also contain cases from many courts, include Pennsylvania courts, lower federal courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court. My understanding is that Alexander Dallas, the entrepreneur who published the cases, included the other courts' cases to make the volumes more salable, since the U.S. Supreme Court produced relatively few cases in its early years.

In any case, the earliest U.S. Supreme Court reference to "equity and good conscience" that I could find in the WESTLAW SCT-OLD comes from the 1804 Term; the first two references, from 1788 and 1796 Terms, come from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. This doesn't affect the Ninth Circuit opinion's substantive point; and the prase "equity and good conscience" does indeed seem to be roughly contemporaneous in American usage with the founding of the Republic, and likely dates back even before the Revolution in Colonial usage. (I express no view on the historical relationship between the concepts of "equity and good conscience" and "voice of God.") But the incident should be a reminder that "U.S. Reports" doesn't always mean "U.S. Supreme Court."

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. The Law Working Itself Pure:
  2. Little-Known Weird Legal Fact Leads to Glitch in Court of Appeals Opinion:
Aaron Mandel (mail):
In such a case, doesn't the Blue Book require the court name to be included after the date in parentheses
5.8.2006 5:04pm
Cornellian (mail):
I sure wouldn't want to be that judge's clerk right about now.
5.8.2006 5:21pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
Aaron Mandel: Yup, Rule 10.3.2, p. 88 of the 18th edition of the Bluebook flags this issue. The Bluebook (which the federal courts, to my knowledge, don't uniformly use) is good for something, after all.
5.8.2006 5:25pm
Bill Logan (mail):
My understanding is that Alexander Dallas, the entrepreneur who published the cases, included the other courts' cases to make the volumes more salable, since the U.S. Supreme Court produced relatively few cases in its early years.

According to one article, it's the other way around. Dallas included the Supreme Court cases to make the volumes more salable nationally, since his first volume was already selling well in Pennsylvania--and the inclusion of U.S. Supreme Court cases didn't really help sales initially. Craig Joyce, The Rise of the Supreme Court Reporter: An Institutional Perspective on Marshall Court Ascendancy, 83 Mich. L. Rev. 1291, 1301 fn. 56 (1984) (a very interesting article if you're into legal publishing and early Supreme Court history).
5.8.2006 7:41pm
Robert Schwartz (mail):
Wouldn't the correct citation be 1 Dal. 257 (Pa., 1787)?
5.8.2006 9:54pm
guest:
Unfortunately, the errors don't end there. Judge Thomas's first name is misspelled in the slip opinion, but I've given up on finding the e-mail address of the person to aprise of this mistake.
5.8.2006 10:31pm