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 was expounded by the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions, most notably Johnson v. McIntosh in 1823. In that case, Chief Justice John Marshall held that under generally accepted principles of international 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 to the land by right of discovery. It covers other major cases, including Cherokee Nation v.
3.12 Incumbent Supreme Court Justices During the Chief Justiceship of Fred Ruiz Castro (1976–1979) 3.13 Incumbent Supreme Court Justices During the Chief Justiceship of Felix V. Makasiar (1985) 3.13.1 Incumbent Supreme Court Justices During the Chief Justiceship of Ramon C. Aquino (1985–1986)
William McIntosh (c. 1760 – July 1832; also printed as "M‘Intosh") [a] was a fur trader, treasurer of the Indiana Territory under William Henry Harrison, and real estate entrepreneur. He became famous for the United States Supreme Court case of Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) and for his massive real estate holdings on the Wabash River.
In the 1823 case of Johnson v. McIntosh, the Marshall Court had established the supremacy of the federal government in dealing with Native American tribes. [109] In the late 1820s, the state of Georgia stepped up efforts to assert its control over the Cherokee within state borders, with the ultimate goal of removing the Cherokee from the state ...
Based on the decision's reference to the discovery rights of "Christian people" and on the account of Marshall's Supreme Court colleague Joseph Story, Newcomb establishes that the Johnson decision is based in Christian law, specifically the 1493 papal bull Inter caetera. Newcomb concludes that the doctrine of discovery violates federal law's ...
Among other points, the Supreme Court, faced with the 1997 Court of Appeals ruling affirming Marcos’ conviction for his non-filing of income tax returns from 1982 until 1985, sustained the Comelec's ruling on the non-filing of income tax returns as not amounting to moral turpitude. [16]