Mitchell v. United States
Citations
- 88 U.S. 350
- 22 L. Ed. 584
- 21 Wall. 350
- 1874 U.S. LEXIS 1375
Syllabus
<p>A resident of a loyal State, who, after the 17th of July, 1861, and just after the late civil war had become flagrant, went, under a military pass of a Federal officer into the rebel States, and in November and December, 1864, bought a large quantity of cotton there (724 bales), and never re turned to the loyal States until just after that and when the war was not far from its close — when he did return to his old domicile — having, during the time that he was in the rebel States transacted business, collected debts, and purchased the cotton, held, on a question whether he had been trading with the enemy, not to have lost his original domicile, and accordingly to have been so trading.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “A domicile once acquired is presumed to continue until it is shown to have been changed.”
- “domicile once acquired is presumed to continue until it is shown to have been changed”
- “A domicil once acquired is presumed to continue until it is shown to have been changed.”
- “domicile once acquired is presumed to continue until it is shown to have been changed”
- “Mere absence from a fixed home, however long continued,” does not mean that a certain domicile is destroyed
- “By the term domicile, in its ordinary acceptation, is meant the place where a person lives and has his home.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Swayne
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
160 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Washington v. HOVENSA LLCThird Circuit· 2011-07-21· cited 459×
- TEXAS v. FLORIDA Et Al.Supreme Court· 1939-03-27· cited 448×
- George S. Krasnov v. Brendan DinanThird Circuit· 1972-09-07· cited 395×
- Middleton Ex Rel. National Financial Systems Management, Inc. v. StephensonTenth Circuit· 2014-04-24· cited 301×
- Williamson v. OsentonSupreme Court· 1914-03-16· cited 255×
- Mas v. PerryFifth Circuit· 1974-02-22· cited 253×
- Anand Prakash v. American UniversityD.C. Circuit· 1984-02-10· cited 220×
- Martinez Ex Rel. Morales v. BynumSupreme Court· 1983-05-02· cited 209×
- Anderson v. WattSupreme Court· 1891-03-02· cited 200×
- Sun Printing and Publishing Assn. v. EdwardsSupreme Court· 1904-05-16· cited 190×
- Ed Freeman and Wife Sharon Freeman, Cross-Appellants v. Northwest Acceptance Corporation, Cross-AppelleeFifth Circuit· 1985-03-04· cited 188×
- Bank One, Texas, N.A. v. Paul J. MontleFirst Circuit· 1992-05-12· cited 130×
- Ellen Hawes, for Herself and in Representation of the Minors Ana Francisca Hawes and Maria Cristina Hawes v. Club Ecuestre El ComandanteFirst Circuit· 1979-05-18· cited 127×
- McCann v. Newman Irrevocable TrustThird Circuit· 2006-08-16· cited 124×
- Kubin v. MillerS.D. New York· 1992-07-31· cited 95×
- Brandon Hefferan v. Ethicon Endo-SurgerySixth Circuit· 2016-07-08· cited 94×
- Irene A. Janzen, Administratrix of the Estate of Waldo R. Janzen, Deceased v. Wilber W. Goos and Ivan GottulaEighth Circuit· 1962-04-27· cited 79×
- Walters v. WeedCalifornia Supreme Court· 1988-04-28· cited 77×
- Jennifer Mason v. Lockwood, Andrews & NewnamSixth Circuit· 2016-11-16· cited 69×
- Padilla-Mangual v. Pavía HospitalFirst Circuit· 2008-02-14· cited 65×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.