|
|
| |
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases —
for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case —
for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more.
lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
|
| |
Federal Courts -
U. S. Supreme Court - March, 1857
|
| |
Scott v. Sandford,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 5, 1857, Decided; December 1856 Term
View this case - free
|
Overview: The Supreme Court reversed the judgment for respondent and ordered the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner was a slave of African descent. He brought suit in the federal court against respondent, his owner, for assault. The Court held that petitioner was not a citizen of Missouri as asserted in his original complaint because he was not permitted to become a citizen, and no state had the power to grant him citizenship. Furthermore, the Court held that petitioner did not gain his freedom by being transferred into a territory of the United States declared free by Congress because Congress's power to make rules and regulations for territories only applied to those territories belonging to the United States when the constitution was drafted. Therefore, the law making the territory free was unconstitutional. Finally, the Court held that petitioner did not gain his freedom by being taken into the free state of Illinois because the property laws of one state could not grant petitioner's freedom. Therefore, the Court held that judgment against respondent was to be vacated and the case dismissed because the Court did not have jurisdiction over petitioner's complaint.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|