Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

United States v. Jones

• 1892 • 147 U.S. 672 • Fuller Court
In the United States v. Jones case of 1892, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Jones, claimed that he had been unlawfully dispossessed of his property by the defendant and sought to recover it through legal action. However, there was confusion over whether or not Jones actually owned this piece of land due to conflicting laws from Maryland and Virginia (which originally governed D.C.). The court ultimately decided in favor of the...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1892
Docket: 312
147 U.S. 672
13 S. Ct. 437
37 L. Ed. 325
1893 U.S. LEXIS 2194

United States v. Jones

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the United States v. Jones case of 1892, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Jones, claimed that he had been unlawfully dispossessed of his property by the defendant and sought to recover it through legal action. However, there was confusion over whether or not Jones actually owned this piece of land due to conflicting laws from Maryland and Virginia (which originally governed D.C.). The court ultimately decided in favor of the defendant because they found no evidence proving that Maryland law would have recognized Jones' claim to ownership based on inheritance from his mother's estate as legitimate. This decision clarified how state laws should be interpreted when determining rightful property ownership within Washington D.C., establishing precedent for future cases with similar circumstances.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Jones, 1892, Justice Brewer argued that the government's seizure of lottery tickets sent through mail was unconstitutional. He contended that Congress did not have the power to regulate what could be transported in interstate commerce under its Commerce Clause powers. According to him, this clause only gave Congress authority over transportation itself and not over items being transported unless they posed a direct threat to public safety or morality such as obscene materials or dangerous goods. Furthermore, he believed that allowing Congress this level of control would infringe upon states' rights by giving federal authorities too much power over local matters like lotteries which were legal in some states at the time.

Opinion written by Justice HBBrown
Decided: Mar 06, 1893
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms