United States v. Simms

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=United States v. Simms
ArgueDate=February 17
ArgueYear=1803
DecideDate=February 23
DecideYear=1803
FullName=
USVol=5
USPage=252
NewCitation=usscr|5|252|1803|1|Cranch
Prior=Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for the County of Alexander
Subsequent=Affirmed
Holding=Private rights of action under Virginia law persist in the District of Columbia
SCOTUS=1801-1804
PerCuriam=yes
Majority=
JoinMajority=
Concurrence=
JoinConcurrence=
Concurrence2=
JoinConcurrence2=
Concurrence/Dissent=
JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
Dissent=
JoinDissent=
Dissent2=
JoinDissent2=
NotParticipating=
LawsApplied=The Acts of Congress of 27 February, 1801, and of 3 March, 1801, relative to the District of ColumbiaThe Act of the Assembly of Virginia of 19 January, 1798 regarding gambling

"United States v. Simms", ussc|5|252|1803|1|Cranch is a case of the Supreme Court of the United States. It was one of a series of cases dealing with the applicability of previous laws in the newly created District of Columbia

Background of the case

Prior to the creation of the District of Columbia in 1801, Virginia created a private right of action to enforce most of its criminal statutes. It was illegal in Virginia to operate a billiards parlor, a faro table, or any of a number of other gambling operations from one's house. The law provided that the penalty would be a fine of 150 pounds payable to "any" party that would file suit against the operator.cite court
litigants = United States v. Simms
vol = 5
reporter = U.S.
opinion = 252
pinpoint =
court =
date = 1803
url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/5/252/case.html]

When the District of Columbia was formed the acts of Congress that created the district, also created a contradictory legal situation. They held that within the portion of the District of Columbia that had previously been Virginia territory the laws of Virginia would continue to apply. However, it also held that all suits for breech of the peace or other laws within the district must be prosecuted in the name of the United States and that fines would be payable to the United States. This led to a contradiction because the Virginia law, which was supposedly still in force, had no such requirement.

Decision

The Court held that the object of Congress to have been not to change in any respect the existing laws further than the new situation of the District rendered indispensably necessary. Thus "qui tam" remedies enacted before the creation of the District should persist.

ee also

* History of Washington, D.C.

Notes and references

External links

* [http://supreme.justia.com/us/5/252/case.html Full text of the decision on Justica]