The Law of the Commonwealth and Chief Justice Shaw

Levy, Leonard W.

doi:10.2307/1338291

Cited by 19 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…24 In Commonwealth v. Aves, Shaw ruled as he did because he considered slavery "contrary to natural right, to the principles of justice, humanity and sound policy". 25 There is a widespread agreement in the literature that, by the arguments applied in this verdict, "Chief Justice Shaw had established a monumental precedent in law", 26 and, further, that "in the antebellum period, Aves stood along with Lord Mansfield's opinion in Somerset as one of cornerstones of antislavery thought and theory". 27 Shaw's subsequent Commonwealth v. Porterfield and Commonwealth v. Fitzgerald judg ments in 1844 confirm the reasoning and argumentation adopted in the Commonwealth v. Aves case.…”

Section: Commonwealth V Avesmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Judicial Disobedience, Justice Lemuel Shaw and Commonwealth v. Aves

Zajadło

2022

AFPiFS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main purpose of this paper is the analysis of the notion "judicial disobedience”. The author describes two aspects (individual and institutional) and compare them with civil disobedience. The problem is presented in a paradigmatic manner upon the example of case law of American courts relating to slavery in the period of half of the century preceding the outbreak of the Civil War. Based on this, the author constructs a typology assuming four possible opinions of an adjudicating judge based on provisions of law, which are contrary to the judge’s conscience and morality. In this paper the problem is described upon the example of Justice Lemuel Shaw, Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court from 1830 to 1860. However special attention is paid to his judgment in case Commonwealth v. Aves., but his another verdicts have been mentioned as well.

show abstract

Section: Commonwealth V Avesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Even more, the boy expressed a clear wish to stay with his guardian. 29 It was quite remarkable for the great Lemuel Shaw to hold a sincere and empathic conversation with a tenyearold black boy from Havana in America of 1832!…”

Section: Commonwealth V Avesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judicial Disobedience, Justice Lemuel Shaw and Commonwealth v. Aves

Zajadło

2022

AFPiFS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All property in this Commonwealth is derived directly or indirectly from the government, and held subject to those general regulations which are necessary to the common good and general welfare. 101 Subsequent legislation had not changed this fundamental subordination of private property to the power of the state. As Justice Field, a stalwart defender of vested rights, wrote in Barbier v. Connolly (1885), "neither [the Fourteenth] Amendment, broad and comprehensive as it is, nor any other amendment was designed to interfere with the police power."…”

Section: Substantive Limits On the Police Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

The Road to Euclid v. Ambler: City Planning, State-Building, and the Changing Scope of the Police Power

Revell

1999

Stud. in Am. Pol. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“We must reckon first with the fact that Americans take for granted their right to do on their own property anything they please regardless of their neighbors,” Edward Bassett told his compatriots in the New York City zoning movement in 1913.Appended Report, Zoning and Districting, Minutes of the Heights of Buildings Commission, June 9, 1913, Heights of Buildings Commission, New York City Municipal Archives, Box 2507. Bassett, who has come to be known as the father of zoning, captured the thoughts of many planning advocates when he criticized the legal system for giving real estate owners almost total control over the use of their property. American cities would remain ugly, disorderly, and inefficient, Bassett and other aspiring planners feared, because the law did not adequately permit municipal authorities to regulate the use of private property.

show abstract

The Creation of American Common Law, 1850–1880

Schweber

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This page intentionally left blank The Creation of American Common Law, 1850-1880 Technology, Politics, and the Construction of Citizenship This book is a comparative study of American legal development in the mid-nineteenth century. Focusing on Illinois and Virginia, supported by observations from six additional states, the book traces the crucial formative moment in the development of an American system of common law in northern and southern courts. The process of legal development and the form that the basic analytical categories of American law came to have are explained as the products of different responses to the challenge of new industrial technologies, particularly railroads. The nature of those responses was dictated by the ideologies that accompanied the social, political, and economic orders of the two regions. American common law, ultimately, is found to express an emerging model of citizenship, appropriate to modern conditions. As a result, the process of legal development provides an illuminating perspective on the character of American political thought in a formative period of the nation.

show abstract

The Law of the Commonwealth and Chief Justice Shaw

Cited by 19 publications

References 0 publications

Judicial Disobedience, Justice Lemuel Shaw and Commonwealth v. Aves

Judicial Disobedience, Justice Lemuel Shaw and Commonwealth v. Aves

The Road to Euclid v. Ambler: City Planning, State-Building, and the Changing Scope of the Police Power

The Creation of American Common Law, 1850–1880

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About