Berry v. Davis

Berry Et Al., Constituting the Board of Parole of Iowa, Et Al. v. Davis

Berry v. Davis, 242 U.S. 468 (1917)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Decided: January 22, 1917
Docket: No. 47
Judges: Holmes
Citations: 242 U.S. 46837 S. Ct. 20861 L. Ed. 4411917 U.S. LEXIS 2168

Cited by 37 2 descriptions by later courts

Syllabus

When injunctive relief against action by state officials granted in the court below becomes superfluous and the case moot because of subsequent state legislation passed while the case is here pending, this court will reverse and remand with directions tc dismiss the- bill without costs.

Summary

APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP IOWA. The case is stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Holmes

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.

' This is a bill to enjoin the State Board of Parole and the warden and physician of the state penitentiary at Fort Madison, from performing vasectomy upon the plaintiff, •the defendant in error, in pursuance of ah Iowa statute approved April 19, 1913. 35 G. A., c. 187, § 1. Supplement to Code 1913, c. 19-B, § 2600-p. This act among other things directed the operation to be performed upon convicts in the penitentiary who had been twice convicted of felony, and on February 14, 1914, the Board had ordered it, upon the ground that the plaintiff had been twice so convicted. The bill was filed on March 11, 1914. On April 15, 1914, following an opinion of the Attorney General that both felonies must have been committed after the passage of the act, the order was laid on the table, and the warden and physician made affidavits, filed on April 22, that the operation would not be performed by them. Nevertheless, three judges, disregarding the fore *470 going opinion and action, proceeded to issue a preliminary-injunction as prayed in the bill. 216 Fed. Rep. 413.

An appeal was taken to this court in 1914. In 1915 the Act of 1913 was repealed, and the substituted act does not apply to the plaintiff. Supplemental Supplement to the Code of Iowa, 1915, c. 19-B, § 2600-sl. All possibility or threat of the operation has disappeared now, if not before, by the act of the State. Therefore upon the precedents we are not called upon to consider the propriety of the action of the District Court, but the proper course is to reverse the decree and remand the cause with directions that the bill be dismissed without costs to either party;

United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U. S. 466, 475, 478 ;

Jones v. Montague, 194 U. S. 147, 153 ;

Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U. S. 115, 120 ;

Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 658 .

Decree reversed. Bill to be dismissed without costs to either party.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(suit to enjoin mandatory vasectomy on plaintiff dismissed after statute requiring operation was replaced by law inapplicable to plaintiff)

Northeastern Fla. Chapter of the Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993)

Cited by 37 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Acheson v. Droesse197 F.2d 574 (D.C. Cir. 1952)
W. Ames & Co. v. Wallace81 F.2d 414 (D.C. Cir. 1935)
In re Joseph Lee Moore221 S.E.2d 307 (N.C. 1976)
Town of Portsmouth v. Lewis813 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2016)
DeFunis v. Odegaard529 P.2d 438 (Wash. 1974)
United States v. International Union, United Mine Workers of America190 F.2d 865 (D.C. Cir. 1951)

Most recent

Town of Portsmouth v. Lewis813 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2016)
Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville508 U.S. 656 (1993)
In re Joseph Lee Moore221 S.E.2d 307 (N.C. 1976)
DeFunis v. Odegaard529 P.2d 438 (Wash. 1974)
Anna Masszonia v. Walter E. Washington476 F.2d 915 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
Dr. Bertrand O. Tyson v. Lt. Clarence J. Cazes363 F.2d 742 (5th Cir. 1966)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651 (1895)	917
	United States v. Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U.S. 466 (1916)	159
	Jones v. Montague, 194 U.S. 147 (1904)	79
	Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U.S. 115 (1901)	42

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list