Posted by KatNip on September 19, 1998 at 03:51:10:
In Reply to: Municipal Nature of IRC is Res Judicata posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 18, 1998 at 21:28:18:
Dunno, but per your "Winning brief in Knox v.
U.s. et al., USDC, San Antonio, Texas" post I
thought maybe you'd find the below useful or
Note the "but a differently constituted minority".
Is one who lives in the District of Columbia a
citizen of a “State” within the meaning of the
diversity jurisdiction? Congress has given an
affirmative answer by defining “states” to include
the District. (28 U.S.C.A. § 1332(d) The
constitutionality of this act was upheld by a
sharply divided Supreme Court in one of the
strangest cases on record.(29)
29. National Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer
Co., 337 U.S. 582, 69 S.Ct. 1173, 93 L.Ed. 1556
(1949). All of the justices of the Court agreed
that the validity of the act would depend upon
whether it could be supported by Art. I, or Art.
III. On the question of the validity of the act
under Art. I the vote was Yes—3, No—6. On the
question of the validity of the act under Art. III
the vote was Yes—2, No—7. Thus, a majority of the
Court held the act invalid under both articles,
but a differently constituted minority of 5 held
the act valid under one or the other, but were in
disagreement as to which one. Milton D. Green,
Basic Civil Procedure (University Textbook Series),
p. 18 n. 29, The Foundation Press, Inc. (1972).
“The District of Columbia Code having been enacted
by Congress, is a law of the United States.”
Palmore v United States, 411 U.S. 400, 93 S.Ct.
For some purposes, the District of Columbia is
classified as a State. Thus it is deemed to be
a State within the meaning of certain treaties.
District of Columbia held to be one of the
“states of the union” within meaning of a treaty
regulating taking of land by descent. Geofroy v.
Riggs, 133 US 258, 33 L.Ed. 642, 10 S.Ct. 295.
: I have put the winning brief in Knox v. U.S. et al.
: into the Supreme Law Library, at the URL infra:
Post a Followup