Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Vance Vs. Terrazas

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 15, 1980

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

64 entries 10 linked 54 unlinked
Show
  1. Afroyim Vs. Rusk US Supreme Court · May 29, 1967
  2. Perez Vs. Brownell US Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1958
    Relied / Followed
  3. Addington Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1979
  4. Towson Vs. Moore US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1899
  5. Nishikawa Vs. Dulles US Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1958
  6. Trop Vs. Dulles US Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1958
  7. Mullaney Vs. Wilbur US Supreme Court · Jun 09, 1975
  8. Woodby Vs. Ins US Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1966
  9. Swift Vs. Tyson US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1842
  10. Perkins Vs. Elg US Supreme Court · May 29, 1939
  11. U.S. 252 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Vance v. Terrazas
    Search
  12. U.S. 252 (1980) Vance v. Terrazas
    Search
  13. committed the expatriating act prescribed in the statute, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship. Cf. Afroyim v. Rusk
    Search
  14. as construed in Afroyim v. Rusk
    Search
  15. Ibid. The court also said, relying upon and quoting from United States v. Matheson
    Search
  16. Id. at 10. The Court of Appeals ruled, however, that. under Afroyim v. Rusk
    Search
  17. Brief for Appellant 24. We disagree. In Afroyim v. Rusk
    Search
  18. in a political election. He in consequence was stripped of his United States citizenship. Consistently with Perez v. Brownell
    Search
  19. Nisikawa v. Dulles
    Search
  20. words and conduct -- was also reflected in the United States' response to the petition for certiorari in United States v. Matheson
    Search
  21. c). We are in fundamental disagreement with these conclusions. In Nishikawa v. Dulles
    Search
  22. in the Constitution. The Court noted, moreover, that it was acting in the absence of legislative guidance. Nishikawa v. Dulles
    Search
  23. to create inferior federal courts, is undoubted and has been frequently noted and sustained. See, e.g., Usery v. Turner
    Search
  24. Hawkins v. United
    Search
  25. Tot v. United
    Search
  26. on the facts of each case, and that Congress could provide rules of evidence for such proceedings. Nishikawa v. Dulles
    Search
  27. have held that the Due Process Clause imposes requirements of proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence. Mullaney v. Wilbur
    Search
  28. and evinced a decided preference for requiring clear and convincing evidence to prove expatriation. Nishikawa v. United
    Search
  29. did not purport to be a constitutional ruling, and the same is true of similar rulings in related areas. Woodby v. INS
    Search
  30. Schneiderman v. United
    Search
  31. to be proved by the party claiming the duress. Nishikawa v. Dulles
    Search
  32. is presumed and that duress is an affirmative defense to be proved by the party asserting it. See Hartsville Oil Mill v. United
    Search
  33. Savage v. United
    Search
  34. Mason v. United
    Search
  35. is not beyond our power, and, in appropriate circumstances, we have addressed them. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University
    Search
  36. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
    Search
  37. U. S. 64 (1938) (parties agreed that Swift v. Tyson
    Search
  38. Cf. Vachon v. New
    Search
  39. Moragne v. States
    Search
  40. Silber v. United
    Search
  41. position is at odds with a 1969 opinion of the Attorney General, 42 Op.Atty.Gen. 397, which interpreted Afroyim v. Rusk
    Search
  42. The Limits of Afroyim v. Rusk
    Search
  43. Brief in Opposition in Matheson v. United
    Search
  44. H.R.Rep. No. 1086, supra at 41 (quoting Nishikawa v. Dulles
    Search
  45. on the interest at stake, Addington v. Texas
    Search
  46. in part and dissenting in part. The Court today unanimously reiterates the principle set forth in Afroyim v. Rusk
    Search
  47. be deprived without due process of law. Because the interest at stake is comparable to that involved in Addington v. Texas
    Search
  48. See Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez
    Search
  49. Afroyim v. Rusk
    Search
  50. is accused in this case cannot be an expatriating act, I dissent. I This case is governed by Afroyim v. Rusk
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial