Eakin v. Raub
Eakin v. Raub, 12 Sergeant & Rawle 330 (Pa. 1825), was a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case that ruled that the state supreme court had the right to review legislative acts and declare those acts as void if they contradict the state's constitution. Through this decision, the court adopted an approach to judicial review consistent with the 1803 ruling of Marbury v. Madison. The case is most notable for the dissent of Judicial Review from Justice John Bannister Gibson, which challenged the position that a supreme court should be the final arbiter of constitutional questions.[1]
The Case was initially filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Northampton County, Pennsylvania, by James Eakin and Ann Simpson in an attempt to achieve an ejectment of Daniel Raub, Edmund Porter, Samuel Sitgreaves, Hugh Ross, John Lippens and John Ross, who owned property in Pennsylvania while residing overseas.[2]
References
[edit]- ^ Clinton, Robert (1987). "Eakin v. Raub: Refutation or Justification of Marbury v. Madison?". Constitutional Commentary: 81. Retrieved October 11, 2021.
- ^ Eakin v. Raub, 1825 WL 1913 (1825)
External links
[edit]- [1], text of Eakin v. Raub from https://www.courtlistener.com
 | This Pennsylvania-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
 | This article relating to case law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |