Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Owings v. Speed Et Al.

1820 • 18 U.S. 420 • Marshall Court
In Owings v. Speed et al., the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case concerning an appeal from a judgment in favor of defendants, which had been rendered by the Circuit Court for Maryland. The plaintiff, William Owings, was seeking to recover damages for trespass and false imprisonment after being arrested on suspicion of having committed larceny. He argued that his arrest was unlawful because it lacked probable cause or any other legal authority; however, he failed to prove this...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Marshall Court
Term: 1820
18 U.S. 420
5 L. Ed. 124
1820 U.S. LEXIS 266
Argued: Mar 13, 1820

Owings v. Speed Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Owings v. Speed et al., the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case concerning an appeal from a judgment in favor of defendants, which had been rendered by the Circuit Court for Maryland. The plaintiff, William Owings, was seeking to recover damages for trespass and false imprisonment after being arrested on suspicion of having committed larceny. He argued that his arrest was unlawful because it lacked probable cause or any other legal authority; however, he failed to prove this before the lower court. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Marshall held that although there may have been some evidence against him at one point in time prior to his arrest warrant being issued - such as rumors and suspicions - none were sufficient enough under law to justify an arrest without further investigation or inquiry into its validity first. Ultimately, Marshall concluded that since no reasonable grounds existed upon which Owings could be lawfully arrested at the time when he was taken into custody by defendant officers – they were liable for their actions and thus owed him damages accordingly.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Owings v. Speed et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction, but Justice Story dissented from this decision. He argued that there is no constitutional provision which prohibits such an exercise of power by a State and it would be unjust for one party to suffer because they are unable to bring suit in their own home state due to jurisdictional issues. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress has not prohibited such suits then it should be left up to each individual State's legislature as long as they do not violate any other part of the Constitution or federal law. In conclusion, Justice Story believed that States should have authority over cases between citizens of different states so long as those laws do not conflict with any other provisions in either the Constitution or federal statutes.

Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms