| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Lobenstein v. United States was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1875. The case involved a dispute between the United States and Lobenstein, a German immigrant who had been convicted of violating the terms of his naturalization. Lobenstein argued that he had been denied due process of law when he was convicted without being given the opportunity to present evidence in his defense. The Supreme Court held that Lobenstein had been denied due process of law and that the conviction was invalid. The Court noted that the naturalization laws of the United States required that a person be given the opportunity to present evidence in his defense before being convicted. The Court held that this requirement was a fundamental part of due process of law and that Lobenstein had been denied this right. The Court also held that the United States had failed to provide Lobenstein with the opportunity to present evidence in his defense and that this failure was a violation of due process of law. The Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.
Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Lobenstein v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an absurd result. He argued that a contract between two parties should be interpreted according to its plain language, not by what one of the parties may have intended or believed it meant. The contract at issue stated that if either party failed to perform their obligations under it, then they were liable for damages; however, Justice Field argued that this did not mean they could be held liable for failing to do something which was impossible due to circumstances beyond their control. In this case, he noted there had been no breach of any obligation on behalf of Lobenstein as his failure arose from events outside his control - namely Congress' passage of a law prohibiting him from performing certain acts required by the contract - and thus he should not be held responsible for damages resulting from such an event.