Supreme Court of the United States, 1832

Gassies v. Ballon

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided March 15, 1832 · Marshall

31 U.S. 761; 8 L. Ed. 573; 6 Pet. 761; 1832 U.S. LEXIS 499 (United States Reports)

Counsel

The-case was argued by Mr Taney for the plaintiff in error; and by Mr Key for the defendant., Mr Key, for the defendant in error.

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

George S. Krasnov v. Brendan Dinan (3d Cir. 1972)
Deere v. State of New York (District Court, N.D. New York 1927)
United States v. Severino (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York 1903)
Littell v. Erie R. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York 1900)
Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad (Supreme Court of the United States 1854)
State v. Nolfi (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976)
Williamson v. Osenton (Supreme Court of the United States 1914)
Linton v. Childs (Ga. 1899)
Marks v. Marks (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Tennessee 1896)
Glover v. Shepperd (District Court, W.D. Wisconsin 1883)
Davis v. Cook (Nev. 1874)
Manufacturers' National Bank v. Baack (United States Circuit Courts 1871)
Easterly v. Goodwin (Conn. 1868)
Smith v. Moody (Ind. 1866)
Sebastian Hiriart, in Error v. Jean Gassies Ballon (Supreme Court of the United States 1835)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Mr Chief Justice Marshall

delivéred the opinion of the Court.

In. this case the court is of opinion that the jurisdiction can be sustained. The. defendant in error is alleged in the proceedings to be a citizen of the United States, naturalized in Louisiana, and .residing there. This is equivalent to an averment that he is a citizen of that state.' A citizen of the United States, residing in any state of the union, is a citizen of that state.

'The authorities on this question have gone far enough; and this court is not disposed to narrow any moire the limitations which have been imposed by the decided cases. They have gone as far as it would be reasonable and proper to go. The judgment of the district court of Louisiana is affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.