Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
The United States, appellants v. Eusebio M. Gomez, 1834 — 33 U.S. 477 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
The United States, appellants v. Eusebio M. Gomez
33 U.S. 4778 Pet. 477·Supreme Court of the United States·1834
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
The United States, appellants v. Eusebio M. Gomez.
The case was submitted to the court by Mr Call, for the United States; and by Mr White, for the appellee.
[MAJORITY — Mr Chief Justice Marshall]
Mr Chief Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This claim is for twelve thousand acres of land, on Jupiter Island, in East Florida, for which a concession was made by governor Estrada, on the 16th day of July 1815. The concession is for services, and is unconditional. It was declared valid by the district court to the extent of the grant. The decree is affirmed.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the superior court for the eastern district of Florida, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by this court, that the decree of the said superior court in this cause be, and the same is hereby affirmed, in all respects.