Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Zschernig Vs. Miller

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 15, 1968

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

69 entries 4 linked 65 unlinked
Show
  1. Kent Vs. Dulles US Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1958
  2. Hines Vs. Davidowitz US Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1941
  3. Nielsen Vs. Johnson US Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1929
  4. Kolovrat Vs. Oregon US Supreme Court · May 01, 1961
  5. U.S. 429 (1968) U.S. Supreme Court Zschernig v. Miller
    Search
  6. U.S. 429 (1968) Zschernig v. Miller
    Search
  7. affairs and international relations, matters which the Constitution entrusts solely to the Federal Government. Clark v. Allen
    Search
  8. Stat. 2135) but that, by reason of the same Article, as construed in Clark v. Allen
    Search
  9. of Justice, appearing as amicus curiae, submits that, although the 1923 Treaty is still in force, Clark v. Allen
    Search
  10. That literal language and its long consistent construction, we held in Clark v. Allen
    Search
  11. U.S. at 331 U. S. 51 . We do not accept the invitation to reexamine our ruling in Clark v. Allen
    Search
  12. State into the field of foreign affairs which the Constitution entrusts to the President and the Congress. See Hines v. Davidowitz
    Search
  13. similar to the California Act which we had before us in Clark v. Allen
    Search
  14. U.S. at 331 U. S. 506 , n. 1. We held in Clark v. Allen
    Search
  15. whether the matter involves commercial cases, tort cases, or some other type of controversy. At the time Clark v. Allen
    Search
  16. The Government's acquiescence in the ruling of Clark v. Allen
    Search
  17. to place it in the category of a diplomatic bagatelle. As we read the decisions that followed in the wake of Clark v. Allen
    Search
  18. See State Land Board v. Kolovrat
    Search
  19. Ore. 448, 46162, 349 P.2d 255, 262, rev'd sub nom. Kolovrat v. Oregon
    Search
  20. relations -- matters which the Constitution entrusts solely to the Federal Government -- is not sanctioned by Clark v. Allen
    Search
  21. as applied by Oregon. In State Land Board v. Pekarek
    Search
  22. Id. at 83, 378 P.2d at 738. Yet in State Land Board v. Schwabe
    Search
  23. D.C. toward Warsaw, accepted the certificate as true. Id. at 84, 400 P.2d at 11. In State Land Board v. Rogers
    Search
  24. as it is of (1)(b) and (1)(c). In Clostermann v. Schmidt
    Search
  25. Where those laws conflict with a treaty, they must bow to the superior federal policy. See Kolovrat v. Oregon
    Search
  26. S. 187 . Yet, even in absence of a treaty, a State's policy may disturb foreign relations. As we stated in Hines v. Davidowitz
    Search
  27. In Clark v. Allen
    Search
  28. of the statute was to prevent American assets from reaching hostile nations preparing for war on this country. Crowley v. Allen
    Search
  29. the statement of a foreign ambassador that reciprocal rights existed in his nation. Brief for petitioner in Clark v. Allen
    Search
  30. No. 626, October Term 1946, pp. 73-74. Thus, we had no reason to suspect that the California statute in Clark v. Allen
    Search
  31. Belemecich Estate, 411 Pa. 506, 508, 192 A.2d 740, 741, rev'd sub nom. Consul General of Yugoslavia v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  32. U. S. 395 , on authority of Kolovrat v. Oregon
    Search
  33. In Mullart v. State
    Search
  34. the Constitution to the National Government, not to the probate courts of the several States. To the extent that Clark v. Allen
    Search
  35. In his celebrated concurring opinion in Ashwander v. Tennessee
    Search
  36. question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter. Siler v. Louisville
    Search
  37. Light v. United
    Search
  38. should be afforded by overruling the construction of the 1923 treaty, rather than the constitutional holding, in Clark v. Allen
    Search
  39. e do not accept the invitation to reexamine our ruling in Clark v. Allen
    Search
  40. that a practically identical provision of a treaty with Wurttemburg had been held in the 1860 case of Frederickson v. Louisiana
    Search
  41. however, presents a detailed account of the history of the Clause which was not before the Court in Frederickson v. Louisiana
    Search
  42. found that the 1923 treaty was still effective with respect to East Germany, and consequently held that, under Clark v. Allen
    Search
  43. However, I am satisfied that Clark v. Allen
    Search
  44. Court there held that the words of the 1923 treaty must be taken to bear the meaning ascribed to them in Frederickson v Louisiana
    Search
  45. bear the meaning given them in Frederickson, it seems to me Page 389 U. S. 451 that the Court in Clark v. Allen
    Search
  46. This was acknowledged by the Court in Clark v. Allen
    Search
  47. the right to inherit personal property from a decedent who dies in his own country. I would overrule Frederickson v. Louisiana
    Search
  48. supra, and Clark v. Allen
    Search
  49. not stand in the way of rectifying two decisions that rest on such infirm foundations. Compare Swift & Co., Inc. v. Wickham
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Zschernig v. Miller
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial