Jump to content

Ex parte Bollman: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Savidan (talk | contribs)
53,757 edits
no such point was in issue. section 14 of the Judiciary Act explicitly provided for original habeas
→top: add "use mdy dates" template
 
(22 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{citations missing|date=December 2007}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{more citations needed|date=December 2007}}
{{SCOTUSCase
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
|Litigants=Ex parte Bollman
|Litigants=Ex parte Bollman
|ArgueDate=
|ArgueDate=
Line 9: Line 10:
|USVol=8
|USVol=8
|USPage=75
|USPage=75
|Citation=8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75; 2 L. Ed. 554; 1807 U.S. LEXIS 369
|ParallelCitations=4 [[William Cranch|Cranch]] 75; 2 [[L. Ed.]] 554; 1807 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 369
|Prior=United States v. Bollman, 24 F. Cas. 1189 (C.C.D.C. 1807) (No. 14,622)
|Prior=''United States v. Bollman'', 24 F. Cas. 1189 (C.C.D.C. 1807) (No. 14,622)
|Subsequent=None
|Subsequent=None
|Holding=The petitioners' alleged conspiracy did not rise to the level of treason as defined by the Constitution.
|Holding=The petitioners' alleged conspiracy did not rise to the level of treason as defined by the Constitution.
|SCOTUS=1807
|Majority=Marshall
|Majority=Marshall
|JoinMajority=Cushing, Chase, Washington, Livingston
|JoinMajority=Cushing, Chase, Washington, Livingston
Line 19: Line 19:
|LawsApplied=[[Article One of the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. art. I]], [[Article Three of the United States Constitution|III]], [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|amends. IV]], [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|VI]]; [[Judiciary Act of 1789]]
|LawsApplied=[[Article One of the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. art. I]], [[Article Three of the United States Constitution|III]], [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|amends. IV]], [[Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|VI]]; [[Judiciary Act of 1789]]
}}
}}
'''''Ex parte Bollman''''', {{ussc|8|75|1807|4|Cranch}}, was a case brought before the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]]. ''Bollman'' held that the constitutional definition of treason excluded mere conspiracy to levy war against the United States.
'''''Ex parte Bollman''''', 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75 (1807), was a case brought before the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]]. ''Bollman'' held that the constitutional definition of treason excluded mere conspiracy to levy war against the United States.<ref name="VirginiaLaw">{{cite journal |last1=Howell |first1=Herbert A. |title=The Law of Treason |journal=Virginia Law Review |date=November 1917 |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=131–134 |doi=10.2307/1064036 |jstor=1064036 |issn=0042-6601}}</ref>


Erick Bollman and [[Samuel Swartwout]] were civilians who became implicated in the [[Burr conspiracy|Burr-Wilkinson Plot]]. This plot supposedly consisted of [[Aaron Burr]] and [[James Wilkinson]] attempting to create an empire in the United States, ruled by Burr. In 1806, Wilkinson informed [[Thomas Jefferson]] of the plot, ending whatever may have actually been planned. Bollman and Swartwout attempted to recruit others into the plot, but these individuals informed the military, which promptly arrested them.
Erick Bollman and [[Samuel Swartwout]] were civilians who became implicated in the [[Burr conspiracy|Burr-Wilkinson Plot]]. This plot supposedly consisted of [[Aaron Burr]] and [[James Wilkinson]] attempting to create an empire in the United States, ruled by Burr. In 1806, Wilkinson informed President [[Thomas Jefferson]] of the plot, ending whatever may have actually been planned. Bollman and Swartwout attempted to recruit others into the plot, but these individuals informed the military, which promptly arrested them.

The Supreme Court decided that "To constitute a levying of war, there must be an assemblage of persons for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose. Enlistments of men to serve against government is not sufficient."{{R|VirginiaLaw|p=132}}


==See also==
==See also==
Line 28: Line 30:


==References==
==References==
{{Reflist}}
*Eric M. Freedman, ''Milestones in Habeas Corpus: Part I: Just Because John Marshall Said It, Doesn't Make It So'': Ex Parte Bollman ''and the Illusory Prohibition on the Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners in the Judiciary Act of 1789'', 51 {{smallcaps|Ala. L. Rev.}} 531 (2000).
*[[Jean Edward Smith]], ''John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation''. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1996.


==External links==
==External links==
* {{caselaw source
*[http://laws.findlaw.com/us/8/75.html Full Text of the Decision]
| case = ''Ex parte Bollman'', {{ussc|8|75|1807|Cranch|4|el=no}}
| courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/84842/ex-parte-bollman-and-swartwout/
| findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/8/75.html
| googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=891096754227370578
| justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/8/75/
| loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep008/usrep008075/usrep008075.pdf
| openjurist =https://openjurist.org/8/us/75
}}


{{USArticleI}}
{{USArticleIII}}


[[Category:United States Constitution Article One case law]]
[[Category:United States Constitution Article Three case law]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Marshall Court]]
[[Category:Criminal cases in the Marshall Court]]
[[Category:Suspension Clause case law]]
[[Category:Suspension Clause case law]]
[[Category:1807 in United States case law]]
[[Category:1807 in United States case law]]

Latest revision as of 02:10, 13 September 2023

Ex parte Bollman
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided February 20, 1807
Full case nameEx parte Erick Bollman and Ex parte Samuel Swartwout
Citations8 U.S. 75 (more)
4 Cranch 75; 2 L. Ed. 554; 1807 U.S. LEXIS 369
Case history
PriorUnited States v. Bollman, 24 F. Cas. 1189 (C.C.D.C. 1807) (No. 14,622)
SubsequentNone
Holding
The petitioners' alleged conspiracy did not rise to the level of treason as defined by the Constitution.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Marshall
Associate Justices
William Cushing · Samuel Chase
Bushrod Washington · William Johnson
H. Brockholst Livingston
Case opinions
MajorityMarshall, joined by Cushing, Chase, Washington, Livingston
DissentJohnson
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I, III, amends. IV, VI; Judiciary Act of 1789

Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75 (1807), was a case brought before the United States Supreme Court. Bollman held that the constitutional definition of treason excluded mere conspiracy to levy war against the United States.[1]

Erick Bollman and Samuel Swartwout were civilians who became implicated in the Burr-Wilkinson Plot. This plot supposedly consisted of Aaron Burr and James Wilkinson attempting to create an empire in the United States, ruled by Burr. In 1806, Wilkinson informed President Thomas Jefferson of the plot, ending whatever may have actually been planned. Bollman and Swartwout attempted to recruit others into the plot, but these individuals informed the military, which promptly arrested them.

The Supreme Court decided that "To constitute a levying of war, there must be an assemblage of persons for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose. Enlistments of men to serve against government is not sufficient."[1]: 132 

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Howell, Herbert A. (November 1917). "The Law of Treason". Virginia Law Review. 5 (2): 131–134. doi:10.2307/1064036. ISSN 0042-6601. JSTOR 1064036.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ex_parte_Bollman&oldid=1175142005"