GELPCKE v. DUBUQUE - Revision history

Randylyon at 03:02, 9 November 2019

2019-11-09T03:02:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:02, 9 November 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	GELPCKE v. DUBUQUE. The case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on December 15, 1863 and was decided on January 11, 1864 by a vote of 8 to 1. Justice Swayne wrote the decision for the Court; Miller wrote the dissent; and Taney did not participate. (1)		GELPCKE v. DUBUQUE. The case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on December 15, 1863 and was decided on January 11, 1864 by a vote of 8 to 1. Justice Swayne wrote the decision for the Court; Justice Miller wrote the dissent; and Justice Taney did not participate. (1)

	The history of the case involved the competition of northern cities before the [[CIVIL WAR]] for rail traffic. Poorly backed bond issues led to defaults. Promoters in Dubuque, Iowa, issued bonds for the Sioux City and Marion and Western railroads. (2) The amounts exceeded the debt limit specified in the Iowa constitution. A reform‐minded Iowa Supreme Court reversed earlier rulings upholding the validity of the bonds. (3)		The history of the case involved the competition of northern cities before the [[CIVIL WAR]] for rail traffic. Poorly backed bond issues led to defaults. Promoters in Dubuque, Iowa, issued bonds for the Sioux City and Marion and Western railroads. (2) The amounts exceeded the debt limit specified in the Iowa constitution. A reform‐minded Iowa Supreme Court reversed earlier rulings upholding the validity of the bonds. (3)
Line 5:		Line 5:
	[[MAHONY, Dennis\|Dennis MAHONY]], editor of the ''Dubuque Democratic Herald'', and others suggested a compromise agreement with the bondholders. According to an editorial in the paper, Mahony's suggestion was met with several patrons threatening to withdraw their business if he persisted in his idea (4)		[[MAHONY, Dennis\|Dennis MAHONY]], editor of the ''Dubuque Democratic Herald'', and others suggested a compromise agreement with the bondholders. According to an editorial in the paper, Mahony's suggestion was met with several patrons threatening to withdraw their business if he persisted in his idea (4)

	The bondholders appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that federal courts, under Swift v. Tyson (1842), could construe state constitutions when state supreme court precedent was inconsistent. In Leffingwell v. Warren (1862), the Supreme Court had stated that it was obliged to follow the most recent state supreme court holdings construing state constitutions. (5)		The bondholders appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that federal courts, under Swift v. Tyson (1842), could construe state constitutions when state supreme court precedent was inconsistent. In Leffingwell v. Warren (1862), the Iowa Supreme Court had stated that it was obliged to follow the most recent state supreme court holdings construing state constitutions. (5)

	In Gelpcke v. Dubuque, Justice Noah Swayne rejected the Iowa Supreme Court ruling. (6) Federal judges were not bound by state courts, Swayne wrote. “We shall never immolate truth, justice, and the law, because a State tribunal has erected the altar and decreed the sacrifice." Justice Samuel Freeman Miller (an Iowan) dissented, arguing that only state judges should have final authority to construe the state's constitution and laws.		In Gelpcke v. Dubuque, Justice Noah Swayne rejected the Iowa Supreme Court ruling. (6) Federal judges were not bound by state courts, Swayne wrote. “We shall never immolate truth, justice, and the law, because a State tribunal has erected the altar and decreed the sacrifice." Justice Samuel Freeman Miller (an Iowan) dissented, arguing that only state judges should have final authority to construe the state's constitution and laws.
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Investors, law writers, and legal academics praised the decision. Critics charged that it deepened harsh feelings between federal judges and the elected state courts and that it blocked urban development. (7)		Investors, law writers, and legal academics praised the decision. Critics charged that it deepened harsh feelings between federal judges and the elected state courts and that it blocked urban development. (7)

	The resulting cost of the city was $450,000 and several years interest. (8) This was still part of the city debt in 1923. (9) Dubuque County was subject to $200,000 and $70,000 in interest. (10)		The resulting cost of the city was $450,000 and several years' interest. (8) This was still part of the city debt in 1923. (9) Dubuque County was subject to $200,000 and $70,000 in interest. (10)

	---		---

Randylyon at 19:01, 2 September 2019

2019-09-02T19:01:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:01, 2 September 2019
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Investors, law writers, and legal academics praised the decision. Critics charged that it deepened harsh feelings between federal judges and the elected state courts and that it blocked urban development. (7)		Investors, law writers, and legal academics praised the decision. Critics charged that it deepened harsh feelings between federal judges and the elected state courts and that it blocked urban development. (7)

	The resulting cost of the city was $450,000 and several years interest. (8) This was still part of ~~its~~ debt in 1923. (9) Dubuque County was subject to $200,000 and $70,000 in interest. (10)		The resulting cost of the city was $450,000 and several years interest. (8) This was still part of the city debt in 1923. (9) Dubuque County was subject to $200,000 and $70,000 in interest. (10)

	---		---

Randylyon at 21:33, 23 November 2015

2015-11-23T21:33:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 23 November 2015
Line 33:		Line 33:
	8. "Gelpcke Case,"		8. "Gelpcke Case,"

	9. "~~Dubuque Helped Build~~..."		9. "John H. Thedinga," Linwood Legacies. Online: http://www.linwoodlegacies.org/john-h-thedinga.html

	10. "Gelpcke Case,"		10. "Gelpcke Case,"

	[[Category: Legal Cases]]		[[Category: Legal Cases]]

Randylyon at 19:25, 23 August 2015

2015-08-23T19:25:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:25, 23 August 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	GELPCKE v. DUBUQUE. The case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on December 15, 1863 and was decided on January 11, 1864 by a vote of 8 to 1. Justice Swayne wrote the decision for the Court; Miller wrote the dissent; and Taney did not participate. (1)		GELPCKE v. DUBUQUE. The case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on December 15, 1863 and was decided on January 11, 1864 by a vote of 8 to 1. Justice Swayne wrote the decision for the Court; Miller wrote the dissent; and Taney did not participate. (1)

	The history of the case involved the competition of northern cities before the [[CIVIL WAR]] for rail traffic. Poorly backed bond issues led to defaults. Promoters in Dubuque, Iowa, issued bonds in amounts ~~that~~ exceeded the debt limit specified in the Iowa constitution. A reform‐minded Iowa Supreme Court reversed earlier rulings upholding the validity of the bonds. (2)		The history of the case involved the competition of northern cities before the [[CIVIL WAR]] for rail traffic. Poorly backed bond issues led to defaults. Promoters in Dubuque, Iowa, issued bonds for the Sioux City and Marion and Western railroads. (2) The amounts exceeded the debt limit specified in the Iowa constitution. A reform‐minded Iowa Supreme Court reversed earlier rulings upholding the validity of the bonds. (3)

	[[MAHONY, Dennis\|Dennis MAHONY]], editor of the ''Dubuque Democratic Herald'', and others suggested a compromise agreement with the bondholders. According to an editorial in the paper, Mahony's suggestion was met with several patrons threatening to withdraw their business if he persisted in his idea (3)		[[MAHONY, Dennis\|Dennis MAHONY]], editor of the ''Dubuque Democratic Herald'', and others suggested a compromise agreement with the bondholders. According to an editorial in the paper, Mahony's suggestion was met with several patrons threatening to withdraw their business if he persisted in his idea (4)

	The bondholders appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that federal courts, under Swift v. Tyson (1842), could construe state constitutions when state supreme court precedent was inconsistent. In Leffingwell v. Warren (1862), the Supreme Court had stated that it was obliged to follow the most recent state supreme court holdings construing state constitutions. (4)		The bondholders appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that federal courts, under Swift v. Tyson (1842), could construe state constitutions when state supreme court precedent was inconsistent. In Leffingwell v. Warren (1862), the Supreme Court had stated that it was obliged to follow the most recent state supreme court holdings construing state constitutions. (5)

	In Gelpcke v. Dubuque, Justice Noah Swayne rejected the Iowa Supreme Court ruling. (5) Federal judges were not bound by state courts, Swayne wrote. “We shall never immolate truth, justice, and the law, because a State tribunal has erected the altar and decreed the sacrifice." Justice Samuel Freeman Miller (an Iowan) dissented, arguing that only state judges should have final authority to construe the state's constitution and laws.		In Gelpcke v. Dubuque, Justice Noah Swayne rejected the Iowa Supreme Court ruling. (6) Federal judges were not bound by state courts, Swayne wrote. “We shall never immolate truth, justice, and the law, because a State tribunal has erected the altar and decreed the sacrifice." Justice Samuel Freeman Miller (an Iowan) dissented, arguing that only state judges should have final authority to construe the state's constitution and laws.

	Investors, law writers, and legal academics praised the decision. Critics charged that it deepened harsh feelings between federal judges and the elected state courts and that it blocked urban development. (6)		Investors, law writers, and legal academics praised the decision. Critics charged that it deepened harsh feelings between federal judges and the elected state courts and that it blocked urban development. (7)

	The resulting cost of the city was $450,000 and several years interest. (7) This was still part of its debt in 1923. (8) Dubuque County was subject to $200,000 and $70,000 in interest. (9)		The resulting cost of the city was $450,000 and several years interest. (8) This was still part of its debt in 1923. (9) Dubuque County was subject to $200,000 and $70,000 in interest. (10)

	---		---
Line 19:		Line 19:
	1. "Dubuque Helped Build Road That Takes Trade," ''Telegraph Herald'', Apr. 22, 1923		1. "Dubuque Helped Build Road That Takes Trade," ''Telegraph Herald'', Apr. 22, 1923

	2. ~~Ibid~~.		2. "The Gelpcke Case Gone Against the City," ''Dubuque Democratic Herald'', January 13, 1864, p. 4. Online: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=A36e8EsbUSoC&dat=18640113&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

	3. "~~Gelpcke Case," ''~~Dubuque ~~Democratic Herald'', January 13, 1864, p 1~~. ~~Online: https://news~~.~~google~~.~~com/newspapers?nid=A36e8EsbUSoC&dat=18640113&printsec=frontpage&hl=en~~		3. "Dubuque Helped Building..."

	4. "Dubuque ~~Helped Build~~..."		4. "Gelpcke Case," ''Dubuque Democratic Herald'', January 13, 1864, p 1. Online: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=A36e8EsbUSoC&dat=18640113&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

	5. "~~Decision in the United States Supreme Court Against City," ''~~Dubuque ~~Democratic Herald'', January 13, 1864, p~~. 1. ~~Online: https://news~~.~~google.com/newspapers?nid=A36e8EsbUSoC&dat=18640113&printsec=frontpage&hl=en~~		5. "Dubuque Helped Build..."

	6. "Dubuque ~~Helped Build~~..."		6. "Decision in the United States Supreme Court Against City," ''Dubuque Democratic Herald'', January 13, 1864, p. 1. Online: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=A36e8EsbUSoC&dat=18640113&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

	7. "~~Gelpcke Case,~~"		7. "Dubuque Helped Build..."

	8. "~~Dubuque Helped Build...~~"		8. "Gelpcke Case,"

	9. "Gelpcke Case,"		9. "Dubuque Helped Build..."

			10. "Gelpcke Case,"

	[[Category: Legal Cases]]		[[Category: Legal Cases]]

Randylyon at 19:13, 23 August 2015

2015-08-23T19:13:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:13, 23 August 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	GELPCKE v. DUBUQUE. The case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on December 15, 1863 and was decided on January 11, 1864 by a vote of 8 to 1. Justice Swayne wrote the decision for the Court; Miller wrote the dissent; and Taney did not participate.		GELPCKE v. DUBUQUE. The case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on December 15, 1863 and was decided on January 11, 1864 by a vote of 8 to 1. Justice Swayne wrote the decision for the Court; Miller wrote the dissent; and Taney did not participate. (1)

	The history of the case involved the competition of northern cities before the [[CIVIL WAR]] for rail traffic. Poorly backed bond issues led to defaults. Promoters in Dubuque, Iowa, issued bonds in amounts that exceeded the debt limit specified in the Iowa constitution. A reform‐minded ~~state supreme court~~ reversed earlier rulings upholding the validity of the bonds.		The history of the case involved the competition of northern cities before the [[CIVIL WAR]] for rail traffic. Poorly backed bond issues led to defaults. Promoters in Dubuque, Iowa, issued bonds in amounts that exceeded the debt limit specified in the Iowa constitution. A reform‐minded Iowa Supreme Court reversed earlier rulings upholding the validity of the bonds. (2)

	~~The~~ bondholders ~~appealed~~ to the ~~U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that federal courts, under Swift v. Tyson (1842)~~, ~~could construe state constitutions when state supreme court precedent~~ was ~~inconsistent. In Leffingwell v. Warren~~ (~~1862~~)~~, the Supreme Court had stated that it was obliged to follow the most recent state supreme court holdings construing state constitutions.~~		[[MAHONY, Dennis\|Dennis MAHONY]], editor of the ''Dubuque Democratic Herald'', and others suggested a compromise agreement with the bondholders. According to an editorial in the paper, Mahony's suggestion was met with several patrons threatening to withdraw their business if he persisted in his idea (3)

	~~In Gelpcke v~~. ~~Dubuque, Justice Noah Swayne rejected the latest Iowa~~ Supreme Court ~~construction. Federal judges were not bound by state~~ courts, ~~Swayne wrote~~. ~~“We shall never immolate truth~~, ~~justice, and the law, because a State tribunal has erected the altar and decreed the sacrifice~~.~~" Justice Samuel Freeman Miller~~ (~~an Iowan~~) ~~dissented~~, ~~arguing~~ that ~~only state judges should have final authority~~ to ~~construe~~ the state~~'s constitution and laws~~.		The bondholders appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that federal courts, under Swift v. Tyson (1842), could construe state constitutions when state supreme court precedent was inconsistent. In Leffingwell v. Warren (1862), the Supreme Court had stated that it was obliged to follow the most recent state supreme court holdings construing state constitutions. (4)

	~~Investors~~, law ~~writers~~, and ~~legal academics praised~~ the ~~decision~~. ~~Critics charged~~ that ~~it deepened harsh feelings between federal~~ judges ~~and~~ the ~~elected~~ state ~~courts~~ and ~~that it blocked urban development~~.		In Gelpcke v. Dubuque, Justice Noah Swayne rejected the Iowa Supreme Court ruling. (5) Federal judges were not bound by state courts, Swayne wrote. “We shall never immolate truth, justice, and the law, because a State tribunal has erected the altar and decreed the sacrifice." Justice Samuel Freeman Miller (an Iowan) dissented, arguing that only state judges should have final authority to construe the state's constitution and laws.

	The resulting cost of the city was still part of its debt in 1923.		Investors, law writers, and legal academics praised the decision. Critics charged that it deepened harsh feelings between federal judges and the elected state courts and that it blocked urban development. (6)

			The resulting cost of the city was $450,000 and several years interest. (7) This was still part of its debt in 1923. (8) Dubuque County was subject to $200,000 and $70,000 in interest. (9)

	---		---
Line 15:		Line 17:
	Source:		Source:

	"Dubuque Helped Build Road That Takes Trade," Telegraph Herald, Apr. 22, 1923		1. "Dubuque Helped Build Road That Takes Trade," ''Telegraph Herald'', Apr. 22, 1923

			2. Ibid.

			3. "Gelpcke Case," ''Dubuque Democratic Herald'', January 13, 1864, p 1. Online: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=A36e8EsbUSoC&dat=18640113&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

			4. "Dubuque Helped Build..."

			5. "Decision in the United States Supreme Court Against City," ''Dubuque Democratic Herald'', January 13, 1864, p. 1. Online: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=A36e8EsbUSoC&dat=18640113&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

			6. "Dubuque Helped Build..."

			7. "Gelpcke Case,"

			8. "Dubuque Helped Build..."

			9. "Gelpcke Case,"

	[[Category: Legal Cases]]		[[Category: Legal Cases]]

Randylyon at 01:03, 3 June 2012

2012-06-03T01:03:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:03, 3 June 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	GELPCKE v. DUBUQUE. ~~Legal issue.~~ The case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on December 15, 1863 and was decided on January 11, 1864 by a vote of 8 to 1. Justice Swayne wrote the decision for the Court; Miller wrote the dissent; and Taney did not participate.		GELPCKE v. DUBUQUE. The case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on December 15, 1863 and was decided on January 11, 1864 by a vote of 8 to 1. Justice Swayne wrote the decision for the Court; Miller wrote the dissent; and Taney did not participate.

	The history of the case involved the competition of northern cities before the [[CIVIL WAR]] for rail traffic. Poorly backed bond issues led to defaults. Promoters in Dubuque, Iowa, issued bonds in amounts that exceeded the debt limit specified in the Iowa constitution. A reform‐minded state supreme court reversed earlier rulings upholding the validity of the bonds.		The history of the case involved the competition of northern cities before the [[CIVIL WAR]] for rail traffic. Poorly backed bond issues led to defaults. Promoters in Dubuque, Iowa, issued bonds in amounts that exceeded the debt limit specified in the Iowa constitution. A reform‐minded state supreme court reversed earlier rulings upholding the validity of the bonds.

Randylyon at 03:48, 22 February 2011

2011-02-22T03:48:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:48, 22 February 2011
Line 8:		Line 8:

	Investors, law writers, and legal academics praised the decision. Critics charged that it deepened harsh feelings between federal judges and the elected state courts and that it blocked urban development.		Investors, law writers, and legal academics praised the decision. Critics charged that it deepened harsh feelings between federal judges and the elected state courts and that it blocked urban development.

			The resulting cost of the city was still part of its debt in 1923.

			---

			Source:

			"Dubuque Helped Build Road That Takes Trade," Telegraph Herald, Apr. 22, 1923

	[[Category: Legal Cases]]		[[Category: Legal Cases]]

Randylyon at 02:58, 27 February 2010

2010-02-27T02:58:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:58, 27 February 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	GELPCKE v. DUBUQUE. Legal issue. The case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on December 15, 1863 and was decided on January 11, 1864 by vote of 8 to 1. Justice Swayne wrote the decision for the Court; Miller wrote the dissent; and Taney did not participate.		GELPCKE v. DUBUQUE. Legal issue. The case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on December 15, 1863 and was decided on January 11, 1864 by a vote of 8 to 1. Justice Swayne wrote the decision for the Court; Miller wrote the dissent; and Taney did not participate.

	The history of the case involved the competition of northern cities before the [[CIVIL WAR]] for rail traffic. Poorly backed bond issues led to defaults. Promoters in Dubuque, Iowa, issued bonds in amounts that exceeded the debt limit specified in the Iowa constitution. A reform‐minded state supreme court reversed earlier rulings upholding the validity of the bonds.		The history of the case involved the competition of northern cities before the [[CIVIL WAR]] for rail traffic. Poorly backed bond issues led to defaults. Promoters in Dubuque, Iowa, issued bonds in amounts that exceeded the debt limit specified in the Iowa constitution. A reform‐minded state supreme court reversed earlier rulings upholding the validity of the bonds.

Randylyon at 04:16, 4 July 2009

2009-07-04T04:16:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:16, 4 July 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	GELPCKE v. DUBUQUE. Legal issue. The case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on December 15, 1863 and was decided on January 11, 1864 by vote of 8 to 1. Justice Swayne wrote the decision for the Court; Miller in dissent; and Taney did not participate.		GELPCKE v. DUBUQUE. Legal issue. The case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on December 15, 1863 and was decided on January 11, 1864 by vote of 8 to 1. Justice Swayne wrote the decision for the Court; Miller wrote the dissent; and Taney did not participate.

	The history of the case involved the competition of northern cities before the [[CIVIL WAR]] for rail traffic. Poorly backed bond issues led to defaults. Promoters in Dubuque, Iowa, issued bonds in amounts that exceeded the debt limit specified in the Iowa constitution. A reform‐minded state supreme court reversed earlier rulings upholding the validity of the bonds.		The history of the case involved the competition of northern cities before the [[CIVIL WAR]] for rail traffic. Poorly backed bond issues led to defaults. Promoters in Dubuque, Iowa, issued bonds in amounts that exceeded the debt limit specified in the Iowa constitution. A reform‐minded state supreme court reversed earlier rulings upholding the validity of the bonds.

Randylyon: New page: GELPCKE v. DUBUQUE. Legal issue. The case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on December 15, 1863 and was decided on January 11, 1864 by vote of 8 to 1. Justice Swayne wrot...

2009-07-04T04:16:08Z

New page: GELPCKE v. DUBUQUE. Legal issue. The case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on December 15, 1863 and was decided on January 11, 1864 by vote of 8 to 1. Justice Swayne wrot...

New page

GELPCKE v. DUBUQUE. Legal issue. The case was argued before the United States Supreme Court on December 15, 1863 and was decided on January 11, 1864 by vote of 8 to 1. Justice Swayne wrote the decision for the Court; Miller in dissent; and Taney did not participate.

The history of the case involved the competition of northern cities before the [[CIVIL WAR]] for rail traffic. Poorly backed bond issues led to defaults. Promoters in Dubuque, Iowa, issued bonds in amounts that exceeded the debt limit specified in the Iowa constitution. A reform‐minded state supreme court reversed earlier rulings upholding the validity of the bonds.

The bondholders appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that federal courts, under Swift v. Tyson (1842), could construe state constitutions when state supreme court precedent was inconsistent. In Leffingwell v. Warren (1862), the Supreme Court had stated that it was obliged to follow the most recent state supreme court holdings construing state constitutions.

In Gelpcke v. Dubuque, Justice Noah Swayne rejected the latest Iowa Supreme Court construction. Federal judges were not bound by state courts, Swayne wrote. “We shall never immolate truth, justice, and the law, because a State tribunal has erected the altar and decreed the sacrifice." Justice Samuel Freeman Miller (an Iowan) dissented, arguing that only state judges should have final authority to construe the state's constitution and laws.

Investors, law writers, and legal academics praised the decision. Critics charged that it deepened harsh feelings between federal judges and the elected state courts and that it blocked urban development.

[[Category: Legal Cases]]