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).
Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) is a notable Supreme Court case that held that private citizens could not purchase lands from Native Americans; it affirmed the relationship between the tribes and the United States government. The decision was written by Chief Justice John Marshall, who was a close friend of Thomas S. Hinde. The latter later ...
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 Supreme Court issued three more opinions on Friday, marking the first time the justices have weighed in on the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. ... Oregon v. Johnson. ... a unanimous 6-0 ...
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:
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 ...
This is the result of the decision in [Johnson v. McIntosh and Cornet v. Winton, written by Justice Catron while he was on the Tennessee high court] . . . . [11] The Supreme Court held that an ejectment defendant could assert the defense of aboriginal title, even if the defendant did not even claim to hold the aboriginal title: