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 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).
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.
Over time, federal statutes and Supreme Court rulings have designated more or less power to tribal governments, depending on federal policy toward Indians. Numerous Supreme Court decisions have created important precedents in Indian country jurisdiction, such as Worcester v. Georgia, Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, Montana v. United States, and ...
In the 1823 case of Johnson v. McIntosh, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision stating that Indians could occupy and control lands within the United States but could not hold title to those lands. [22] Jackson viewed the union as a federation of highly esteemed states, as was common before the American Civil War. He opposed ...
In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, ruling that the agents should have obtained a search warrant. Justice Robert Jackson's majority opinion expounded on the importance of warrants, stating they were required by the Fourth Amendment. Justice Jackson described warrants as a judicial check on the executive. Through ...
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:
The Supreme Court vacated this order and remanded the case for further review, finding that a burden of a retrial three decades after the crime "should not be imposed unless each ground supporting the state court decision is examined and found to be unreasonable under [the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996]."