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 ...
Sturges v. Crowninshield: 17 U.S. 122 (1819) constitutionality of state bankruptcy laws: Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward: 17 U.S. 518 (1819) impairment of contracts: Cohens v. Virginia: 19 U.S. 264 (1821) judicial review of state supreme court decisions Johnson v. McIntosh: 21 U.S. 543 (1823) inability of Native Americans to own land ...
Johnson's Lessee v. McIntosh , 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823) , is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held private citizens could not purchase lands from Native Americans . The litigation began when the successor in interest to a private purchase from the Piankeshaw attempted to maintain an action of ejectment against the holder ...
Johnson was one of the first investors in the Illinois-Wabash Company, which acquired a vast swath of land in Illinois directly from several Indian tribes. Soon after his death in 1819 his son Joshua Johnson and grandson Thomas Graham sued William M'Intosh in the landmark Supreme Court case Johnson v. McIntosh.
Worcester v. Georgia [ 42 ] argued the fundamentals of state government and established boundaries that ensured peace and privacy with the Cherokee Nation. In a 5-1 decision, the court argued in favor of Worcester that the state of Georgia does not have the authority to regulate the intercourse [ 43 ] between citizens of its state and members ...
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 book draws from both well-known decisions of federal courts as well as less well known cases in explaining the doctrines of federal Indian law. 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 ...
In 1874, the U.S. government created the United States Reports, and retroactively numbered older privately published case reports as part of the new series. As a result, cases appearing in volumes 1–90 of U.S. Reports have dual citation forms; one for the volume number of U.S. Reports, and one for the volume number of the reports named for the relevant reporter of decisions (these are called ...