Alton v. Alton
Opinion of the Court
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.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
347 U.S. 610 74 S.Ct. 736 98 L.Ed. 987
ALTON v. ALTON.
No. 531.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued and Submitted April 7, 1954.
June 1, 1954
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.
1
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.
2
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.
3
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. State of North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 , 65 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed. 1577 , the Connecticut divorce decree does not necessarily protect petitioner from conviction for bigamy in the Virgin Islands or anywhere else.
4
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr. Justice JACKSON took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(child custody dispute between Yoko Ono and her first husband)
Cited by 33 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court2
- U.S. Courts of Appeals8
- Federal District Courts2
- Bankruptcy Courts1
- Military Courts2
- State Highest Courts8
- State Appellate Courts1
- State Specialty Courts1
- Territorial Courts8
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.