Zschernig v. Miller
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Zschernig v. Miller | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court of the United States | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||
Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated an Oregon statute for unconstitutionally intruding into the federal realm of foreign affairs even though the statute did not conflict with any federal treaty or statute.[2]
Contents |
[edit] Introduction
[edit] Facts of the case
The Oregon law at issue in the case provided that a nonresident alien could not inherit property from an Oregon decedent unless: 1) the alien's government granted Americans the right to inherit on the same terms as its own citizens, 2) the alien's government gave Americans the right to receive payment in the U.S. from foreign funds, and 3) the alien was able to receive "the benefit, use or control" of the Oregon bequest "without confiscation" by the alien's government.
[edit] Prior history
| Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
[edit] Decision of the Court
[edit] Concurring opinions
| Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
[edit] Dissenting opinions
| Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
[edit] Effects of the decision
The Supreme Court seemed to apply Zschernig as good law in American Insurance Association v. Garamendi, a 2003 case, although they seemed to rely more on Justice Harlan's minority opinion in Zschernig than on the majority opinion.
[edit] Critical response
| Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
[edit] Subsequent history
| Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
[edit] References
- ^ [1] Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
- ^ 10 U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel 49, 61-62 (1986)

