Flexner v. Farson
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP ILLINOIS. The case is stated in the opinion. Subsection 6 of § 51, Kentucky Civil Code,1 affords due process of law and is not violative of the Federal Constitution. "Due process of law” is not susceptible of any restricted definition, but can be adapted to the changing conditions of-society and business. Any legal proceeding which is consonant with natural justice in the light of present conditions affords due process of law.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP ILLINOIS. The case is stated in the opinion. Subsection 6 of § 51, Kentucky Civil Code,1 affords due process of law and is not violative of the Federal Constitution. "Due process of law” is not susceptible of any restricted definition, but can be adapted to the changing conditions of-society and business. Any legal proceeding which is consonant with natural justice in the light of present conditions affords due process of law. It does not require adherence to fixed rules of procedure. Magna Charta, §§ XXXIX and XL; Daniel Webster’s Definition of “due…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Holmes
This is an action brought by the plaintiff in error upon a judgment for money rendered by a Kentucky Court. The declaration alleges that the transaction in respect of which the judgment was rendered took place at Louisville, Kentucky, and that at that time the defendants were doing business there as partners through Washington Flexner, who was and continued to be their agent until the time of this suit. It further alleges that the defendants were nonresidents and that the service of summons of the Kentucky suit was made upon Washington Flexner in accordance with a Kentucky statute authorizing…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- The Lafayette Ins. Co. v. FRENCHSupreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Pennsylvania Fire Insurance v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Mutual Reserve Fund Life Assn. v. PhelpsSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- New York Life Insurance v. DunlevySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
3Cited by105 opinions
- Williams v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Hess v. PawloskiSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Nelson v. MillerIllinois Supreme Court · 1957
- Henry L. Doherty & Co. v. GoodmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- In re Arthur Treacher's Franchisee LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
100 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.