Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Shanks Vs. Dupont

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 01, 1830

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

30 entries 2 linked 28 unlinked
Show
  1. Hunter Vs. Fairfax US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1796
  2. Talbot Vs. Jansen US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1795
  3. U.S. 242 (1830) U.S. Supreme Court Shanks v. Dupont
    Search
  4. U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830) Shanks v. Dupont
    Search
  5. was an American citizen. Page 28 U. S. 245 After the elaborate opinions expressed in the case of Inglis v. Trustees
    Search
  6. to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations. The case of Martin v. Commonwealth
    Search
  7. and it was held that she was not within the purview of the act. The same remark disposes of the case of Sewall v. Lee
    Search
  8. court expressly refused to decide whether the wife by her withdrawal with her husband became an alien. But in Kelly v. Harrison
    Search
  9. by the treaty of peace. But as to its effect, the British courts concur in our view of it. For in the case of Thomas v. Acklam
    Search
  10. the British courts, in construing the treaty of peace, have recognized this right of election, and the case of Thomas v. Acklam
    Search
  11. alien at his death, and could not take even a right of entry by descent, as has been distinctly recognized in Hunter v. Fairfax
    Search
  12. as I was instrumental, to have this question settled on principle. But it does appear to me, that in the case of Coxe v. McIlvaine
    Search
  13. allegiance the British courts have solemnly decided the King has no claim. On this point the case of Ludlow, in Thomas v. Acklam
    Search
  14. so far as they depend upon local law. This is certainly the case in Massachusetts. The decision in the case of Palmer v. Downer
    Search
  15. imperfectly, and I may add unauthentically reported, it is most certainly overruled in the subsequent case of Martin v. Woods
    Search
  16. and for this doctrine the author quotes Talbot v. Jansen
    Search
  17. s Law Journal 462, which must have been quoted to sustain the opposite doctrine. It is the case of the United States v. Williams
    Search
  18. See Kelly v. Harrison
    Search
  19. Jackson v. Lunn
    Search
  20. U.S. Supreme Court Shanks v. Dupont
    Search
  21. of Inglis v. Trustees
    Search
  22. of Martin v. Commonwealth
    Search
  23. of Sewall v. Lee
    Search
  24. Kelly v. Harrison
    Search
  25. of Thomas v. Acklam
    Search
  26. of Coxe v. McIlvaine
    Search
  27. Thomas v. Acklam
    Search
  28. of Palmer v. Downer
    Search
  29. of Martin v. Woods
    Search
  30. of the United States v. Williams
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial