Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Johnson v. 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 .
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.
This is a list of U.S. Supreme Court cases involving Native American Tribes.Included in the list are Supreme Court cases that have a major component that deals with the relationship between tribes, between a governmental entity and tribes, tribal sovereignty, tribal rights (including property, hunting, fishing, religion, etc.) and actions involving members of tribes.
The first case that allowed the American seizure of Indian lands was Johnson v. McIntosh , which stated that when a European nation discovered land in the new world, that it also gained the right to take the land from the natives by purchase or by conquest.
Ely S. Parker, the first indigenous plaintiff to prevail in the U.S. Supreme Court. The two aboriginal title cases involving indigenous litigants to reach the Taney Court both involved the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians and the Tonawanda Reservation, both argued by John H. Martindale (first as the district attorney of Genesee County, New York, then in private practice), and both originated ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
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 search engine that helps you find exactly what you're looking for. Find the most relevant information, video, images, and answers from all across the Web.