 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Myers v. United States, No. 2,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, October 25, 1926
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant, the administratrix of postmaster's estate, sought review of a judgment that rejected a claim for the postmaster's salary where he was removed from office before the expiration of his term by an order of the President, without the Senate's approval, in contravention of § 6 of the Act of Congress, 19 Stat. 80 (1876). The lower court's judgment was premised on a finding that the postmaster had lost his right of action because of his delay in suing. The Supreme Court held he had not lost his right to sue where he acted conscientiously in asserting his rights. In the absence of a constitutional or statutory provision otherwise, the President could by virtue of his general power of appointment remove an officer on the ground that the power of removal inhered in the power to appoint, even though he was appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and notwithstanding specific provisions for his removal for cause. Thus, the Court held that § 6 of the Act under which the unrestricted power to remove first class postmasters was denied to the President, violated the Constitution was invalid. Thus, the Court affirmed the judgment.
|
|||||
| Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., No. 31,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, November 22, 1926, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The landowner asserted that because of the building restrictions imposed, the ordinance operated to reduce the normal value of his property, and to deprive him of liberty and property without due process of law. The municipal corporation and building inspector argued that the ordinance passed constitutional muster and should have been enforced. The court held that the district court clearly had equitable jurisdiction over the matter and further held that the ordinance, in its general scope and dominant features, was a valid exercise of authority. The landowner's property had not suffered or been threatened with an injury that entitled him to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance. The restrictions imposed bore a rational relation to the health and safety of the community.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
