Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
McIntosh, [a] 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823), also written M‘Intosh, is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that held that private citizens could not purchase lands from Native Americans. As the facts were recited by Chief Justice John Marshall , the successor in interest to a private purchase from the Piankeshaw attempted to ...
The case of Johnson v. McIntosh by the Supreme Court in 1823 is well known to most law students as declaring that Indian tribes had the right to occupy the land but only the United States held title to the land by right of discovery. It covers other major cases, including Cherokee Nation v.
The discovery doctrine, or doctrine of discovery, is a disputed interpretation of international law during the Age of Discovery, introduced into United States municipal law by the US Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in Johnson v. McIntosh (1823).
Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee: 11 U.S. 603 (1813) Loyalist property forfeiture Martin v. Hunter's Lessee: 14 U.S. 304 (1816) Loyalist property forfeiture, Supreme Court review of state court judgments Laidlaw v. Organ: 15 U.S. 178 (1817) the rule of caveat emptor in a commodity delivery contract: Craig v. Radford: 16 U.S. 594 (1818)
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eighteen per curiam opinions during its 2015 term, which began October 5, 2015 and concluded October 2, 2016. [1]Because per curiam decisions are issued from the Court as an institution, these opinions all lack the attribution of authorship or joining votes to specific justices.
This part of IGRA was subsequently declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996.) The case was docketed again before Judge Dorsey. [45] Dorsey granted the tribe summary judgment in May 1990, ordering the state to resume negotiations and conclude a compact within 60 days. [46]
Sims' Lessee v. Irvine (1799) was the first Supreme Court decision to discuss aboriginal title (albeit briefly), and the only such decision before the Marshall Court. The Court found ejectment jurisdiction over certain lands, notwithstanding the defendant's claim (in the alternative to the claim that the defendant himself held title) that the lands were still held in aboriginal title because:
It is not uncommon for summary judgments of the lower U.S. courts in complex cases to be overturned on appeal. A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, [15] meaning, without deference to the views of the trial judge, both as to the determination that there is no remaining genuine issue of material fact and that the prevailing party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.