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
126 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 25 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Huggins, 6 V.I. 3 (1967)
Treatment trajectory · 1954 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1954 1990 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 611 “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.”2 citing cases2 citing courts quote it · 1 listed here
3 V.I. at 700 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Huggins, 6 V.I. 3 (1967).published
    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…
Other citing cases5 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Alton
v.
Alton
531.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 1, 1954.
Published opinion
347 U.S. 610
1954 U.S. LEXIS 1989
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.