Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley's Lessee (1829)
In Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley's Lessee (1829) 27 U.S. 492, it was argued that the exclusive power of state courts to construe legislative acts did not extend to the paramount law, so as to enable them to give efficacy to an act which was contrary to the state Constitution; but Marshall, C.J., speaking for the Supreme Court of the United States, said:
"We cannot admit this distinction. The judicial department of every government is the rightful expositor of its laws, and emphatically of its supreme law."
Chief Justice Marshall, in discussing the applicability of Ohio occupant law as "rules of decision" under 34 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 92, 28 U.S.C. 725, said:
"The laws of the states, and the occupant law, like others, would be so regarded, independent of that special enactment. . . ."