Murdock v. City of Memphis

Murdock v. Memphis
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 21, 1874 Reargued April 2–3, 1874 Decided January 11, 1875
Full case name	Murdock v. City of Memphis
Citations	87 U.S. 590 (more) 22 L. Ed. 429; 1874 U.S. LEXIS 1451; 20 Wall. 590
Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed the state court's decision on federal law, but would not consider the state court's decisions resting solely on state law.
Court membership
Chief Justice Morrison Waite Associate Justices Nathan Clifford · Noah H. Swayne Samuel F. Miller · David Davis Stephen J. Field · William Strong Joseph P. Bradley · Ward Hunt
Case opinions
Majority	Miller
Dissent	Clifford, joined by Swayne
Dissent	Bradley
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2. and Section 25 of Judiciary Act of 1789 as amended in 1867

Murdock v. Memphis, 87 U.S. 590 (1875), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.

William Tod Otto argued the case on behalf of the City of Memphis. The case having been reargued, as well as argued originally, before the appointment of the Chief Justice Waite, who took no part in the judgment.

Murdock challenged on several grounds a state court's decision relating to land devised by Murdock's ancestors. Murdock's federal claim which was outcome determinative was that a federal statute created a trust for the land. The state court rejected this claim and the Supreme Court affirmed. Murdock, however, urged the Supreme Court to review the state court's findings on state law based on the Judiciary Act of 1867. The Supreme Court interpreted the Act as not conferring jurisdiction over the state claims, but the Court did not decide as a constitutional matter whether conferring such jurisdiction would be constitutional.

The Supreme Court continued to lay some ground rules for appeals of state court decisions, namely the effect of a state court decision resting on an adequate and independent state ground. While these rules were important in the development of adequate and independent state grounds doctrine in cases like Fox Film Corp. v. Muller and Michigan v. Long, they were merely dicta. The Court ultimately affirmed the decision of the state court on the federal law and did not decide the two issues of state law.