This HTML5 document contains 317 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
n19http://dbpedia.org/resource/Wikt:
n24https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep098061/
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
n25https://scholar.google.com/
n21https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
n15http://dbpedia.org/resource/File:
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n20https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/98/
n5https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
n16https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/98/61/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
n17https://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/98/61/
n11https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/89846/united-states-v-throckmorton/
n8http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/
n6https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:United_States_v._Throckmorton
rdf:type
dbo:Case dbo:LegalCase dbo:UnitOfWork wikidata:Q2334719 dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase owl:Thing
rdfs:label
United States v. Throckmorton
rdfs:comment
United States v. Throckmorton (98 U.S. 61) is an 1878 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on civil procedure, specifically res judicata, in cases heard at equity. A unanimous Court affirmed an appeal of a decision by the District Court for California upholding a Mexican-era land claim, holding that collateral estoppel bars untimely motions to set aside the verdict where the purportedly fraudulent evidence has already been considered and a decision reached. In the opinion it distinguished between that kind of fraud, which it called intrinsic, and extrinsic fraud, in which deceptive actions exterior to the proceeding prevented a party, or potential party, to the action from becoming aware of the possibility they could vindicate their rights in court.
foaf:depiction
n8:William_Howard_Taft_as_Chief_Justice_SCOTUS.jpg n8:John_Marshall_Harlan,_1833-1911_LCCN2004672091.jpg n8:Justice_William_J._Brennan_-_detail_1976.jpg n8:Judge_James_G._Jenkins.png n8:Owen_J._Roberts_cph.3b11988.jpg n8:Samuel_Freeman_Miller_-_Brady-Handy.jpg n8:Roujet_DeLisle_Marshall.png n8:HugoLaFayetteBlack.jpg n8:Justice_James_C._Kerwin.png
dcterms:subject
dbc:Estoppel dbc:United_States_property_case_law dbc:United_States_res_judicata_case_law dbc:Fraud_in_the_United_States dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Waite_Court dbc:1878_in_United_States_case_law
dbo:wikiPageID
68599008
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1100012854
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit dbr:Charles_Alan_Wright dbr:Detroit dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Eighth_Circuit dbr:Bennett_Champ_Clark dbr:Tax_assessor dbr:Attorney_General_of_the_United_States dbr:Samuel_Freeman_Miller dbr:Marshall_v._Holmes dbr:United_States_Court_of_Customs_and_Patent_Appeals dbr:J._Dudley_Digges dbr:New_York_Court_of_Appeals dbr:Airframe dbr:Hearsay_in_the_United_States dbr:Lin_Wood dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Tenth_Circuit dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Third_Circuit dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fourth_Circuit dbr:New_York_City dbr:Walter_A._Huxman dbr:Latin_language dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Second_Circuit dbr:Interference_proceeding dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit dbr:2020_United_States_presidential_election dbr:Richard_J._Cardamone dbr:Extrinsic_fraud dbr:John_D._Butzner_Jr. dbr:John_Biggs_Jr. dbr:Insurance_fraud dbr:Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election dbr:Default_judgement dbr:William_James_Wallace n15:Justice_James_C._Kerwin.png dbr:District_Court_of_Queensland dbr:Hilton_v._Guyot dbr:Texas_Supreme_Court dbc:Estoppel dbr:Anti-Injunction_Act dbr:Manuel_Micheltorena n15:John_Marshall_Harlan,_1833-1911_LCCN2004672091.jpg dbr:Hilton_v_Guyot dbr:Land_grant dbr:Court_of_Chancery dbr:Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel dbr:Federal_Rules_of_Civil_Procedure dbr:E._Grady_Jolly dbr:Civil_procedure dbr:Pleading dbr:William_M._Taylor dbr:University_of_Pennsylvania_Law_Review dbr:Alta_California dbr:Pleading_(United_States) dbr:Circuit_split dbr:William_H._Beatty dbr:Conley_v._Gibson dbr:List_of_former_United_States_district_courts dbc:United_States_res_judicata_case_law dbc:United_States_property_case_law dbr:Guaranty_Trust_Co._v._York dbr:Laches_(equity) dbr:William_Howard_Taft dbr:Federal_Court_of_Australia dbr:Arguendo dbr:Joseph_P._Bradley dbr:Melville_Fuller dbr:Lemuel_Shaw dbr:Visiting_judge dbr:Equity_(law) dbr:Patent_infringement dbr:Double_jeopardy n19:vitiate dbr:Joseph_Buffington dbr:Res_judicata dbr:Statute_of_limitations dbr:Moore's_Federal_Practice dbr:Removal_jurisdiction dbr:Lord_Keeper_of_the_Great_Seal n15:Judge_James_G._Jenkins.png dbr:Oral_argument n15:Samuel_Freeman_Miller_-_Brady-Handy.jpg dbr:Andrew_Hunter_Boyd dbr:Graver_v._Faurot dbr:Bell_Atlantic_Corp._v._Twombly dbr:Charles_Edward_Clark dbr:Marian_P._Opala dbr:Dictum dbr:Wisconsin_Supreme_Court dbr:Brief_(law) dbr:Toledo_Scale_Co._v._Computing_Scale_Co. dbr:Heiser_v._Woodruff dbr:Amicus_curiae dbc:Fraud_in_the_United_States dbr:Emile_Henry_Lacombe dbr:Duke_Law_Journal dbr:Yale_Law_Journal dbr:William_J._Brennan_Jr. dbr:Prior_art dbr:Hazel-Atlas_Glass_Co._v._Hartford-Empire_Co. dbr:Southfield,_New_York dbr:Harry_Heher dbr:Reversible_error dbr:California_Courts_of_Appeal dbr:Motion_to_set_aside_judgment dbr:Breach_of_contract dbr:In_re_Potts dbr:Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election dbr:Master_of_the_Rolls dbr:Robert_D._Simms dbr:Richmond_County,_New_York dbr:Joseph_Biden dbr:Maryland_Court_of_Appeals dbr:Maryland_Court_of_Special_Appeals dbr:Holding_(law) dbr:New_Jersey_Supreme_Court dbr:Montgomery_County,_Maryland dbr:Patents_in_the_United_States dbr:Dissenting_opinion dbr:Executor dbr:Stipulation dbr:Donald_Trump dbr:John_Joseph_Gibbons dbr:South_Carolina_Supreme_Court dbr:Due_diligence dbr:Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law dbr:Sidney_Powell dbr:Barrow_v._Hunton dbr:Utah_Supreme_Court dbr:Roujet_D._Marshall dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_98 dbr:Indemnity dbr:José_Victor_Toledo dbr:1878_in_the_United_States dbr:Otto_Kaus dbr:Precedent_(law) dbr:Arson dbr:Graham_B._Smedley dbr:Courts_of_Louisiana dbr:National_Labor_Relations_Board dbr:Charles_Alvin_Jones dbr:Garnishment dbr:Bankruptcy_in_the_United_States dbr:Joe_McDonald_Ingraham dbr:Pickford_v._Talbott dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_the_Waite_Court n15:William_Howard_Taft_as_Chief_Justice_SCOTUS.jpg dbr:Nathan_Wright_(judge) dbr:Owen_Roberts dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals dbr:John_Marshall_Harlan dbr:United_States_Reports dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Kansas dbr:Few_Brewster dbr:U.S._Attorney dbr:Arthur_R._Miller dbr:Unconscionability dbr:Hartford-Empire_Co._v._United_States dbr:American_Flint_Glass_Workers'_Union dbr:Texas_Tech_University_School_of_Law dbr:Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States n15:Owen_J._Roberts_cph.3b11988.jpg dbr:Florida_Supreme_Court dbr:En_banc dbr:James_Graham_Jenkins dbr:Stare_decisis dbr:Democratic_National_Committee dbr:Walter_Van_Dyke dbr:Naturalization dbr:Vanderbilt_Law_Review n15:Roujet_DeLisle_Marshall.png dbr:Duke_University_School_of_Law dbr:James_Kent_(jurist) dbr:Linda_Vivienne_Parker dbr:Harvard_Law_Review dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Puerto_Rico dbr:Pawtucket,_Rhode_Island dbr:Massachusetts_Supreme_Judicial_Court dbr:Prosecution_history_estoppel dbr:New_York_Court_of_Chancery dbr:Horace_Gray dbr:Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election_from_Michigan dbr:Charles_Sherrod_Hatfield dbr:Gretchen_Whitmer dbr:Alan_Wilson_(judge) dbr:New_Hampshire_Supreme_Court dbr:William_Clark_(judge) dbr:Federal_Practice_and_Procedure dbr:Affidavit dbr:United_States_Patent_and_Trademark_Office dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_Michigan dbr:Controlling_law dbr:I._Daniel_Stewart dbr:Christine_M._Durham dbr:Diversity_of_citizenship n15:Justice_William_J._Brennan_-_detail_1976.jpg dbr:Discovery_(law) dbr:Coram_nobis dbr:William_Allen_Woods dbr:Oklahoma_Supreme_Court dbr:Parole dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Northern_District_of_Illinois dbr:Erie_Railroad_v._Tompkins dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbr:Perjury dbr:Henry_White_Edgerton dbr:Estate_(law) dbr:Certiorari dbr:Subornation_of_perjury dbr:Harry_Aleman dbr:Ashcroft_v._Iqbal dbr:Collateral_estoppel dbr:Question_of_first_impression dbr:Intervention_(law) dbr:Types_of_fraud dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Waite_Court dbr:Robert_Earl dbr:Negligence dbr:South_Australia dbr:Halsted_L._Ritter dbr:Law_of_agency dbr:Sub_silentio dbr:Marine_Insurance_Co._v._Hodgson n15:HugoLaFayetteBlack.jpg dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Southern_District_of_Florida dbr:Samuel_Hale_Sibley dbr:U.S._Supreme_Court dbr:Columbia_Law_Review dbr:Francis_E._Baker dbr:Staten_Island dbr:Democratic_Party_(United_States) dbr:Circumstantial_evidence dbr:Intrinsic_fraud dbr:Receivership dbr:Hugo_Black dbr:Power_of_attorney dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Federal_Circuit dbr:Mettler_Toledo dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Western_District_of_Pennsylvania dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fifth_Circuit dbr:Philadelphia dbc:1878_in_United_States_case_law dbr:George_Dewey_Oxner dbr:James_C._Kerwin
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n6:5914ab52add7b04934732db1 n17:index.php n24: n21:98-u-s-61-606877058 n16: n25:scholar_case%3Fcase=9640976524557144959 n20:61 n11:%3FC.9.15
owl:sameAs
n5:pB8s wikidata:Q19039639
dbp:vlex
n21:98-u-s-61-606877058
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Notelist dbt:Main dbt:BBstyle dbt:Blockquote dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:' dbt:Reflist dbt:Wikisource dbt:Short_description dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Efn dbt:Ussc
dbo:thumbnail
n8:Samuel_Freeman_Miller_-_Brady-Handy.jpg?width=300
dbp:joinmajority
unanimous
dbp:lawsapplied
Common law of civil procedure
dbp:parallelcitations
25
dbp:uspage
61
dbp:usvol
98
dbp:case
United States v. Throckmorton
dbp:courtlistener
n11:%3FC.9.15
dbp:decidedate
0001-10-01
dbp:decideyear
1878
dbp:holding
State interest in resolving litigation and preventing double jeopardy bars courts of equity from untimely reconsideration of decided cases where a party alleges evidence before the court during the proceeding it had opportunity to impeach was fraudulent. District of California affirmed
dbp:justia
n16:
dbp:litigants
United States v. Throckmorton
dbp:majority
Miller
dbp:otherSource
Casemine Chanrobles
dbp:otherUrl
n6:5914ab52add7b04934732db1 n17:index.php
dbp:loc
n24:
dbo:abstract
United States v. Throckmorton (98 U.S. 61) is an 1878 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on civil procedure, specifically res judicata, in cases heard at equity. A unanimous Court affirmed an appeal of a decision by the District Court for California upholding a Mexican-era land claim, holding that collateral estoppel bars untimely motions to set aside the verdict where the purportedly fraudulent evidence has already been considered and a decision reached. In the opinion it distinguished between that kind of fraud, which it called intrinsic, and extrinsic fraud, in which deceptive actions exterior to the proceeding prevented a party, or potential party, to the action from becoming aware of the possibility they could vindicate their rights in court. The land claim at issue had been filed with the district court in the early 1850s by Richardson, a settler who had lived in California since 1838. He had followed Mexican procedures; Mexican government records verified this and suggested that he would receive the grant but the final decree had never been sent. So, the U.S. federal government claimed, he went to former Mexican governor Manuel Micheltorena with his land claim pending and obtained from him a backdated decree, supported by perjured affidavits from purported witnesses to the signing. Only in the 1870s, while reviewing other paperwork, did government lawyers in the Attorney General's office learn of this and bring the case. Justice Samuel Freeman Miller found little precedent supporting the government's position, and much in opposition, including not only decisions of American courts but those of English courts dating to the beginning of the 18th century. He also cited established legal principles of double jeopardy and the state's interest in not having litigation continue indefinitely. On the facts of the case, he noted that the original petition had taken the court five years to approve, and it was thoroughly inspected, or could have been, by the government's lawyers at the time. Nor did the government offer any new evidence of the fraud, or indicate that the Attorney General had authorized the new litigation. The rule laid down in Throckmorton has been seen as problematized by Marshall v. Holmes, a decision issued 13 years later in a similar case seeking to revisit a result due to the use of allegedly forged evidence; in it a dictum suggested that courts could set aside verdicts in cases of intrinsic fraud if they found the results obtained to be unconscionable. A circuit split developed over which case was controlling during the late 1930s, but the Court declined to resolve it, although it has modified and clarified the rule in several decisions since then; Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) has also limited Throckmorton's applicability. The Third Circuit and several states have rejected Throckmorton in favor of Marshall.
dbp:cornell
n20:61
dbp:googlescholar
n25:scholar_case%3Fcase=9640976524557144959
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:United_States_v._Throckmorton?oldid=1100012854&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
129138
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:United_States_v._Throckmorton