William Berry v. Rudolph Davis, No. 47

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHolmes
Citation37 S.Ct. 208,61 L.Ed. 441,242 U.S. 468
Decision Date15 January 1917
Docket NumberNo. 47
PartiesWILLIAM H. BERRY, John E. Howe, and Davis C. Mott, Constituting the Board of Parol of Iowa, et al., Appts., v. RUDOLPH DAVIS

242 U.S. 468
37 S.Ct. 208
61 L.Ed. 441
WILLIAM H. BERRY, John E. Howe, and Davis C. Mott, Constituting the Board of Parol of Iowa, et al., Appts.,

v.

RUDOLPH DAVIS.

No. 47.
Submitted October 26, 1916.
Decided January 15, 1917.

Page 469

Mr. George Cosson, Attorney General of Iowa, and Mr. Ross R. Mowry for appellants.

No appearance for appellee.

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a bill to enjoin the State Board of Parol 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 an Iowa statute approved April 19, 1913. 35 G. A. chap. 187, § 1. Supplement to Code 1913, chap. 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-

Page 470

going opinion and action, proceeded to issue a preliminary injunction as prayed in the bill. 216 Fed. 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 In 1915 the Act of 1913 was repealed, and the substituted act does not apply to the plaintiff.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, chap. 19-B, § 2600-s1. 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, 60 L. ed. 387, 391, 392, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 212; Jones v. Montague, 194 U. S. 147, 153, 48 L. ed. 913, 915, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 611; Dinsmore v. Southern Exp. Co. 183 U. S. 115, 120, 46 L. ed 111, 113, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 45; Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 658, 40 L. ed. 293, 295, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 132.

Decree reversed. Bill to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 practice notes
  • Moore's Sterilization, In re, No. 72
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • January 29, 1976
    ...62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942); or cruel and unusual punishment, Davis v. Berry, 216 F. 413 (S.D.Iowa 1914), Rev'd on other grounds, 242 U.S. 468, 37 S.Ct. 208, 61 L.Ed. 441 Our research does not disclose any case which holds that a state does not have the right to sterilize an insane ......
  • State of Washington v. United States, No. 13312.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 1, 1954
    ...reach these questions. 14 The exception involves many situations: (a) The later repeal or expiration of a Statute; Berry v. Davis, 1917, 242 U.S. 468, 37 S.Ct. 208, 61 L.Ed. 441 (repeal); Yeaton v. U. S., 1809, 5 Cranch 281, 3 L.Ed. 101 (repeal); The Rachel v. U. S., 1810, 6 Cranch 329, 3 L......
  • Standard Oil Co Indiana v. United States 13 15, 1931, No. 378
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 13, 1931
    ...Gesellschaft, 239 U. S. 466, 475, 36 S. Ct. 212, 60 L. Ed. 387; the alleged validity of such provisions has become moot. Berry v. Davis, 242 U. S. 468, 37 S. Ct. 208, 61 L. Ed. 441; Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U. S. 360, 39 S. Ct. 512, 63 L. Ed. 1030; Alejandrino v. Quezon, 271 U.......
  • Poe v. Ullman Doe v. Ullman Buxton v. Ullman, Nos. 60
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 19, 1961
    ...v. Prewitt, 200 U.S. 446, 26 S.Ct. 314, 50 L.Ed. 545; Richardson v. McChesney, 218 U.S. 487, 31 S.Ct. 43, 54 L.Ed. 1121; Berry v. Davis, 242 U.S. 468, 37 S.Ct. 208, 61 L.Ed. 441; Atherton Mills v. Johnston, 259 U.S. 13, 42 S.Ct. 422, 66 L.Ed. 814. 8. Mr. Justice Brandeis, concurring, in Ash......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
34 cases
  • Moore's Sterilization, In re, No. 72
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • January 29, 1976
    ...62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942); or cruel and unusual punishment, Davis v. Berry, 216 F. 413 (S.D.Iowa 1914), Rev'd on other grounds, 242 U.S. 468, 37 S.Ct. 208, 61 L.Ed. 441 Our research does not disclose any case which holds that a state does not have the right to sterilize an insane ......
  • State of Washington v. United States, No. 13312.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 1, 1954
    ...reach these questions. 14 The exception involves many situations: (a) The later repeal or expiration of a Statute; Berry v. Davis, 1917, 242 U.S. 468, 37 S.Ct. 208, 61 L.Ed. 441 (repeal); Yeaton v. U. S., 1809, 5 Cranch 281, 3 L.Ed. 101 (repeal); The Rachel v. U. S., 1810, 6 Cranch 329, 3 L......
  • Standard Oil Co Indiana v. United States 13 15, 1931, No. 378
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 13, 1931
    ...Gesellschaft, 239 U. S. 466, 475, 36 S. Ct. 212, 60 L. Ed. 387; the alleged validity of such provisions has become moot. Berry v. Davis, 242 U. S. 468, 37 S. Ct. 208, 61 L. Ed. 441; Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U. S. 360, 39 S. Ct. 512, 63 L. Ed. 1030; Alejandrino v. Quezon, 271 U.......
  • Poe v. Ullman Doe v. Ullman Buxton v. Ullman, Nos. 60
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 19, 1961
    ...v. Prewitt, 200 U.S. 446, 26 S.Ct. 314, 50 L.Ed. 545; Richardson v. McChesney, 218 U.S. 487, 31 S.Ct. 43, 54 L.Ed. 1121; Berry v. Davis, 242 U.S. 468, 37 S.Ct. 208, 61 L.Ed. 441; Atherton Mills v. Johnston, 259 U.S. 13, 42 S.Ct. 422, 66 L.Ed. 814. 8. Mr. Justice Brandeis, concurring, in Ash......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT