Best Answer

Daniel Webster (1782-1852) was a famous statesman and constitutional lawyer who argued before the US Supreme Court and won some of the nation's earliest landmark cases (see below). Some of these victories may have been aided by the fact that they involved representing citizens against state interests before the Marshall Court. Chief Justice John Marshall was a Federalist who believed in limiting states' rights. Nevertheless, Daniel Webster was consider brilliant, and a superb orator.

He also served twice as Secretary of State, under William Henry Harrison, from 1841-1843, and Millard Fillmore, from 1850-1852, and was elected to seats on the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Daniel Webster's Notable Supreme Court Cases:

Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 US 518 (1819) (represented Dartmouth)
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819) (represented McCulloch)
Cohens v. Virgina, 19 US 264 (1821) (represented Cohens)
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824) (represented Gibbons)

User Avatar

Wiki User

14y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What Supreme Court cases did Daniel Webster argue?
Write your answer...
Still have questions?
magnify glass
Continue Learning about American Government

What president allowed women to argue cases before the Supreme Court?

Rutherford B. Hayes signed such a bill in March of 1879. The bill was called "An Act to Relieve Certain Legal Disabilities of Women," thus enabling women to practice in the federal court system. It was passed after the Supreme Court decided in 1876 to bar women from arguing cases before them.Belva Ann Bennett Lockwood became the first woman admitted to the US Supreme Court bar later that year.

Can any lawyer present a case before the US Supreme Court?

Lawyers who are members of the Supreme Court Bar may argue at bar; other lawyers may be given leave to argue pro hac vice(for this occasion), as provided in Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules.Rule 6. Argument Pro Hac Vice1. An attorney not admitted to practice in the highest court of a State, Commonwealth, Territory or Possession, or the District of Columbia for the requisite three years, but otherwise eligible for admission to practice in this Court under Rule 5.1 , may be permitted to argue pro hac vice.2. An attorney qualified to practice in the courts of a foreign state may be permitted to argue pro hac vice.3. Oral argument pro hac vice is allowed only on motion of the counsel of record for the party on whose behalf leave is requested. The motion shall state concisely the qualifications of the attorney who is to argue pro hac vice. It shall be filed with the Clerk, in the form required by Rule 21 , no later than the date on which the respondent's or appellee's brief on the merits is due to be filed and it shall be accompanied by proof of service as required by Rule 29 .

How does Zinn argue that the Supreme Court cannot possibly act in a neutral fashion?

Zinn doesn't think that the court can be fair or neutral when the members were chosen by the president, ratified by the senate, and were made up of former wealthy lawyers and people that usually came from the upper class.

Is the Attorney General in the US Supreme Court?

No. The U.S. Attorney General is head of the Department of Justice and the top law enforcement officer for the United States, but does not typically argue before the Supreme Court, except under special circumstances. The current Attorney General is Eric Holder. The U.S. Solicitor General (and staff attorneys), who is also a member of the Department of Justice, represents the government before the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General, while not a true member of the Court, is sometimes called "the tenth Justice."

If supreme court justice were to argue using a precedent what might he or she do?

Site other cases that came to similar conclusions

Related questions

What was the Supreme Court's ruling in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case?

That Scott had no right to argue in court

Why do some argue that the supreme court actually makes law?

Because the supreme court decides weather or not a new law (a bill at the time) is constitutional or not. they make the final choice

Why did Daniel Webster and john c calhoun of North Carolina argue about while serving in the us house of representatives?

They were arguing about the slavery and tariffs of the country. Webster opposed tariffs at first, but then came to like them for the industry

Which president signed a bill allowing female attorneys to argue a case in the supreme court?

Ruther B. hayes

Which president signed a bill allowing female attorney to argue cases before Supreme Court?

Borack obama

Which president sign a bill allowing female attorneys to argue cases before the supreme court?

Borack obama

What is a superem court?

he is a person you hope had a good morning and did not argue with his wife.when you are facing charges and he is your judge.

What president signed a bill allowing female attourneys to argue cases before the Supreme Court?

Rutherford B. Hayes

What was the California Supreme Court case People v Kimball?

The California Supreme Court case People v Kimball concerned a man named Earl Bud Kimball who was accused of murder. Kimball's lawyer tried to argue that he was not sane at the time of the murder, but the jury found the defendant to be sane and Kimball was convicted of the crime. The California Supreme Court upheld the verdict.

Did Abraham Lincoln live in Mt Vernon Il?

No. He came to Mt. Vernon as an attorney to argue a case at the Illinois Supreme Court which is now the Illinois 5th District Appellate Court in Mt. Vernon.

Should the supreme court be guided by the original meaning?

The question of whether the Supreme Court should be guided by the original meaning of the Constitution is a matter of interpretation. Some argue that interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning ensures fidelity to the intentions of the framers. Others argue that the Constitution must be adapted to address modern realities and should be interpreted flexibly. Ultimately, the approach to constitutional interpretation should strike a balance between respecting the original intent and allowing for societal evolution.

Hyperbole your lawyer is so smart that?

My lawyer's intelligence is so vast, they could argue their way out of a legal labyrinth blindfolded.