In the Matter of M

3 Cited authorities

  1. Halbert v. United States

    283 U.S. 753 (1931)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that members of the "Chehalis, Chinook and Cowlitz" groups were each "entitled to take allotments within the Quinaielt Reservation"
  2. United States v. Karnuth

    74 F. Supp. 660 (W.D.N.Y. 1947)   Cited 2 times

    Civ. No. 3588. November 28, 1947. Edward E. Franchot, of Niagara Falls, N.Y., for petitioner. Hon. George L. Grobe, U.S. Atty., and Herman I. Branse, Naturalization Examiner Review Immigration and Naturalization Service, both of Buffalo, N.Y. (R. Norman Kirchgraber, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Buffalo, N.Y., of counsel), for respondent. Habeas corpus proceeding by the United States of America, on the relation of Dorothy Winnifred Goodwin, against Arthur J. Karnuth, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization

  3. Keith v. United States

    58 P. 507 (Okla. 1899)   Cited 2 times

    Filed August 24, 1899. INDIANS — Citizenship. A child who is the offspring of a white father and an Indian woman is not by birth an Indian, but is a citizen of the United States, and is not entitled to the benefit of the act of congress of February 8, 1887, (1 Supp. Rev. Stat. U.S. p. 534, sec. 4.) (Syllabus by the Court.) Error from the District Court of Canadian County; before Jno. H. Burford, District Judge. R. B. Forrest and W. H. Criley, for plaintiff in error. S. L. Overstreet, United States