 In the Matter of the Application of Andrew J. Sawyer for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Chin Tu Ling, Lee Shun, and Look Fung |
|
The habeas corpus petitions related to the Mee Lee Wah Village show legal challenges related to carceral confinement and immigration in the nineteenth century.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Mary Marshall, mother of William Marshall an Infant, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Mary Marshall shows legal challenges related to carceral confinement and child custody in the nineteenth century. After being abandoned by her husband, a mother and her three children were forced to enter a charitable home. When one child became ill, he was given to the custody of a physician. The court ruled that custody of the child was lawful, but that in six months time, the mother could petition to amend or modify the judge's order.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Standing Bear et al. for a Writ of Habeas Corpus |
|
Standing Bear's writ of habeas corpus showed implications for citizenship, land dispossession, and human rights.
|
| In the Matter of the Application of Yu Gum and Yu Hung for a Writ of Habeas Corpus |
|
The habeas corpus petitions of Yu Gum and Yu Hung show legal challenges related to carceral confinement and immigration in the nineteenth century. In this case, two sisters were detained in Seattle for being in the U.S. unlawfully. When they were set to be deported to British Columbia, the girls petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. The outcome of their case is unknown.
|
| In the matter of the Petition of Ham Hung Wah by Tom Sing for Writ of Habeas Corpus |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Tom Sing show legal challenges related to immigration in the early twentieth century.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of Juan Rey Abeita for a Writ of Habeas Corpus |
|
In this case, Juan Rey Abeita petitioned on behalf of his three sons against the superintendent of the Government Indian School in Albuquerque, who refused to allow his sons to return home. The writ was granted, but Abeita later withdrew the petition. Records in the Office of Indian Affairs indicate that the agency pressured the superintendent into releasing the children to avoid an unfavorable legal ruling.
|
| In the Matter of the Petition of Kichitaro Kubota and Ise Kubota for a Writ of Habeas Corpus |
|
The habeas corpus petitions of Kichitaro Kubota and Ise Kubota show legal challenges related to immigration in the early twentieth century
|
| In the matter of the Petition of William M. Parkinson for a Writ of Habeas Corpus |
|
The habeas corpus petition of William M. Parkinson shows legal challenges related to child custody in the nineteenth century. In this case, a father used habeas corpus in an attempt to retrieve his nine-year-old son from his ex-wife and her new husband. The child's fate is unknown.
|
| James Ash v. William H. Williams |
|
In this freedom suit, James Ash was freed from enslavement by the Circuit Court of D.C., based on provisions in the will of his former enslaver. She stipulated that her enslaved people were not to be taken out of Maryland or sold. Should either event occur, they were to be declared free for life. Ash's new enslaver appealed the verdict, but it was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
|
| John Heo v. Robert H. Milroy |
|
In this habeas suit, John Heo was arrested by an Indian agent after he refused to reside on the reservation with his wife and children. Heo argued that he had severed his tribal relations, as had his parents, and that they never lived on a reservation or accepted government annuities. Despite "constantly living with the whites engaged in the pursuits of civilized life" and having "at no time lived with any tribe of Indians" or "acknowledged himself a member of any Indian tribe," the judge ruled in favor of the Indian agent, and Heo remained in custody.
|
| John Johnson v. Sosthene Allain |
|
John Johnson filed a petition for freedom in a New Orleans court, asserting that although born free in New York, he had been illegally sold into slavery and was now being held on a sugar plantation. Johnson and his attorneys invoked New York's gradual abolition laws to establish his free status. The Louisiana court ruled in his favor and Johnson claimed his freedom.
|
| John Jones v. Robert F. Logan |
|
When John Jones was arrested as a fugitive from slavery, he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. Born free in Pennsylvania, upon hearing the facts of the case, Jones was released by the court.
|
| Juan Domingo Lopez v. Francis Phillips |
|
In this colonial era freedom suit, attorney Samuel Chase argued that slavery was "odious to the British Constitution" and freedom a "Natural Right" two years before Lord Mansfield did the same in Somerset v. Stewart.
|
| Julia, alias Mary Ann v. Robert Duncan |
|
This freedom suit was brought on behalf of Julia, a child under the age of 21 who was unlawfully enslaved in St. Louis by the man who sold her free mother into slavery in Louisiana. Although the court granted Julia her freedom, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by her mother two years later shows that Julia was still being held by her enslaver.
|
| Korematsu v. United States (1984) |
|
In this case, Korematsu challenged his 1942 conviction by filing a writ of coram nobis, which asserted that his original conviction was so flawed as to represent a grave injustice and should be reversed. The judge granted the writ, thereby voiding Korematsu's conviction.
|
| Lum Jung Luke and E. M. Allen v. C. E. Yingling and H. W. Applegate |
|
Lum Jung Luke and his business partner, E. M. Allen, applied for an injunction against Arkansas Attorney General H. W. Applegate and prosecutor C. E. Yingling, who had threatened to begin an escheat proceeding (the process of transferring assets to the state) against Lum due to his status as an alien ineligible for citizenship. Chancery Judge A. L. Hutchins ruled in Lum's favor, not only enjoining the attorney general, but also striking down the Alien Land Act of 1925 as "unconstitutional and void."
|
| Margaret Quando v. Thomas Wheeler |
|
This colonial freedom suit was brought by Margaret Quando, a free Black woman, on behalf of her two daughters, who were caught up in an indenture scam by Thomas Wheeler. The court found in favor of the Quando women.
|
| Martin v. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts |
|
The Martin case sets precedent that women have the same legal status as their husbands.
|
| Matilda v. Isaac Vanbibber |
|
Matilda was a Black girl, aged twelve or thirteen, who was brought into Indiana Territory and later forcibly removed to Missouri Territory and sold as a slave. In her petition for freedom, Matilda argued that she earned her freedom while in Indiana Territory by virtue of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 which banned slavery in the new territories.
|
| Mendez v. Westminster |
|
Menedez v. Westminster found educational segregation toward Latino students unconstitutional.
|
| Milly v. Mathias Rose |
|
In this freedom suit, Milly sued for her freedom on behalf of herself and her two children Eliza and Bob. Milly argued that she should be free on account of being held in slavery in the free Illinois Territory.
|
| Mima Queen & Louisa Queen v. John Hepburn |
|
This unsuccessful freedom suit, brought by Mina Queen, reflected legal challenges to slavery and hinged on the Supreme Court's decison that hearsay about family genealogy could not be used as evidence, setting later precedent.
|
| NAACP v. Allen |
|
In this case, the court ruled that the Department of Public Safety of Alabama needed to follow affirmative action principles to reduce discrimination.
|
| Nan Oy v. Territory of Washington |
|
The habeas corpus petition of Nan Oy shows legal challenges related to carceral confinement and immigration in the nineteenth century. In this case, Nan Oy was arrested crossing the U.S. border to be with her husband, a U.S. citizen. She was ultimately deported.
|
| Opinion of Chief Justice Hornblower on the Fugitive Slave Law |
|
Justice Hornblower’s opinion in the State v. Sheriff of Burlington County called into question the authority of the Fugitive Slave Act. The opinion calls into question discrepancies between the federal law and state statute. This opinion is over the case of the Helmsley family. Alexander Helmsley and his wife, Nancy, were a free black couple living in New Jersey. Someone accused them of being fugitive slaves. Under the Fugitive Slave Act, the family should have been sent back to their former enslaver; however, New Jersey’s Personal Liberty Law protected them from being extradited from the state. Hornblower’s opinion advocated for following the state personal liberty law over following the federal law.
|