Alton v. Alton, 347 U.S. 610 (1954). · Go Syfert
Search
Alton v. Alton, 347 U.S. 610 (1954). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
165 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 37 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Government of the Virgin Islands v. Huggins (vimunict, 1967-01-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1954 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1954 1990 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Government of the Virgin Islands v. Huggins
vimunict · 1967 · confidence medium
Absent restrictions elsewhere, such a grant of power to the Legislature of the Virgin Islands places it on a par with the Legislatures of the several states as to all matters properly comprehended within the grant, Alton v. Alton, 207 F.2d 667 (1953), 2 V.I. 600, 604 (1953), vacated on other grounds, 347 U.S. 610 , 3 V.I. 699, 700 (1955), 48 U.S.C. 1572(g).
discussed Cited "see" The Carborundum Company v. Molten Metal Equipment Innovations, Inc.
Fed. Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Spindelfabrik Suessen-Schurr Stahlecker & Grill GmbH v. Schubert & Salzer Maschinenfabrik Aktiengesellschaft, 829 F.2d 1075, 1081 , 4 USPQ2d 1044, 1048 (Fed.Cir.1987) ("[A] patent license agreement is in essence nothing more than a promise by the licensor not to sue the licensee."), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1063 , 108 S.Ct. 1022 , 98 L.Ed.2d 987 (1988).
discussed Cited "see" Carborundum Co. v. Molten Metal Equipment Innovations, Inc.
Fed. Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Spindelfabrik Suessen-Schurr Stahlecker & Grill GmbH v. Schubert & Salzer Maschinenfabrik Aktiengesellschaft, 829 F.2d 1075, 1081 , 4 USPQ2d 1044, 1048 (Fed.Cir.1987) (“[A] patent license agreement is in essence nothing more than a promise by the licensor not to sue the licensee.”), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1063 , 108 S.Ct. 1022 , 98 L.Ed.2d 987 (1988).
discussed Cited "see" Westvaco Corporation v. International Paper Company
Fed. Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Spindelfabrik Suessen-Schurr Stahlecker & Grill GmbH v. Schubert & Salzer Maschinen-fabrik Aktiengesellschaft, 829 F.2d 1075 , 1084 n. 13 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1063 [ 108 S.Ct. 1022 , 98 L.Ed.2d 987 ] (1988).
cited Cited "see" Datascope Corp. v. Smec, Inc., Defendant/cross-Appellant
Fed. Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Suessen-Schurr v. Schubert & Salzer, 829 F.2d 1075, 1084 , 4 USPQ2d 1044, 1051 (Fed.Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1022 , 98 L.Ed.2d 987 (1988).
cited Cited "see" Doe v. Roe
Mass. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Alton v. Alton, 207 F.2d 667, 678, 684-685 (3d Cir. 1953) (Hastie, J., dissenting), judgment vacated and cause remanded with directions to dismiss as moot, 347 U.S. 610 (1954).
examined Cited "see" Estate of Herman Borax, Deceased, Hermine H. Borax, Louis Borax and Benjamin Borax, Executors, and Hermine Borax v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (6×)
2d Cir. · 1965 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally, Alton v. Alton, 207 F.2d 667 (3 Cir. 1953), vacated as moot, 347 U.S. 610 , 74 S.Ct. 736 , 98 L.Ed. 987 (1954); Rosenstiel v. Ro-senstiel, 16 N.Y.2d 64 , 262 N.Y.S.2d 86 , 209 N.E.2d 709 (1965).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Rinehart (2×)
cma · 1957 · signal: see · confidence high
See Alton v Alton, 207 F2d 667 (CA 3d Cir) (1953), dismissed as moot, 347 US 610 , 74 S Ct 736 , 98 L ed 987.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Steven Darshune Harrison (3×)
Bankr. D.N.M. · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Alton v. Alton, 347 U.S. 610 , 74 S. Ct. 736 , 98 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." UNITED STATES v. RAFAEL PAGÁN-SANTINI
1st Cir. · 2006 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Okwumabua, 828 F.2d 950, 953 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1063 , 108 S.Ct. 1022 , 98 L.Ed.2d 987 (1988). *263 As for Pagán's Miranda claim, no Miranda warning was required because Pagán was not “in custody.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 477-78 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 ; McCown v. Callahan, 726 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 839 , 105 S.Ct. 139 , 83 L.Ed.2d 78 (1984).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Avery v. Marengo County Commission
Ala. · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Alamo Rentr-A-Car, Inc. v. Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority, 825 F.2d 367 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority, 484 U.S. 1063 , 108 S.Ct. 1022 , 98 L.Ed.2d 987 (1988).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Eleanor Holm v. Morris Shilensky, Arthur Cantor and Charles Wohlstetter, as Executors of the Estate of Billy Rose, Deceased (3×)
2d Cir. · 1968 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Alton v. Alton, 347 U.S. 610 , 74 S.Ct. 736 , 98 L.Ed. 987 (1954) (per curiam); Davis v. Davis, 305 U.S. 32 , 59 S.Ct. 3 , 83 L.Ed. *57 26 (1938); compare Williams v. State of North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 , 65 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed. 1577 (1945).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Alton
v.
Alton
531.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 1, 1954.
347 U.S. 610
Abe Fortas and George H. T. Dudley argued the cause for petitioner. With them on the brief was Milton V. Freeman., Hyman Smollar submitted the cause on brief for respondent.
Black, Douglas, Jackson.
Cited by 44 opinions  |  Published
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

Messrs.

George H. T. Dudley, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, V.I., Abe Fortas, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Mr. Hyman Smollar, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

Petitioner brought this action for divorce in the Virgin Islands. Following argument and submission of the case in this Court, we were authoritatively advised that a final divorce decree had been entered on April 28, 1954, in the State of Connecticut on application of the respondent. The Superior Court of Connecticut found respondent to be a domiciliary of that State and petitioner here personally appeared in that action. Petitioner does not suggest that she repudiates her appearance in the Connecticut action, that the Connecticut decree is invalid in any way, or, in fact, that there is any colorable basis for challenging it. Nor does petitioner seek any ancillary relief in the instant divorce action that could not be obtained in an independent action in the Virgin Islands.

[*611] On the premises, this case appears to be moot. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the cause is remanded to the District Court with directions to vacate its judgment and to dismiss the proceeding upon the ground that the cause is moot.

Dissent

Mr. Justice Black

dissents. He is of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to have her divorce case tried in the Virgin Islands since under the holding and opinion in Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U. S. 226, the Connecticut divorce decree does not necessarily protect petitioner from conviction for bigamy in the Virgin Islands or anywhere else.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.