Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A conjunction that introduces a relative clause identifying the place, time, or circumstance in which an event or condition occurs.
Willow Walker was indicted in the Eastern District for sabotage that occurred at a plant in the Western District. She moved to dismiss, arguing the jury must come from the district wherein the offense took place. The court sustained the motion and transferred the case.
Wyatt Wilson received a conveyance of land to him and the heirs of his body in a state where the Statute De Donis remains unmodified. The deed created an estate in fee tail in the state wherein the statute continued in force. Wyatt could not freely alienate the property outside the lineal line.
Wilma Wright was born in State A and has always resided there. Under the amendment she became a citizen of the United States and of the state wherein she resides. State A therefore could not deny her equal protection of the laws.
Wesley Wells held an estate in fee tail and executed an inter vivos deed that met the formalities required by the law of the state wherein the land lay. The conveyance validly created interests that a fee simple owner could create. The grantee took the interest free of the entail restrictions.
Wesley Wong received land under language that once created a fee tail. A state statute converted the remainder to fee simple in his issue while preserving his own interest. The statute applied in the state wherein the reform measure was in force and did not reduce his estate to a life estate.
Winston West sued in federal court over a contract breach that occurred in New York. The court applied New York law to compute interest on the judgment in every action wherein a sum was awarded for breach of contract. The clerk added the interest to the total award as required.
In 1918, respondent, a New York corporation, transferred its entire business to petitioner, a Delaware corporation. Petitioner contracted to use its best efforts to further the manufacture and sale of patented devices covered by the agreement, and respondent was to have a share of petitioner’s profits. The agreement was executed in New York, the assets were transferred there, and petitioner began performance there although later it moved its operations to other states. Respondent was voluntarily dissolved under New York law in 1919. Ten years later it instituted this action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that petitioner had failed to perform its agreement to use its best efforts. Jurisdiction rested on diversity of citizenship. In 1939 respondent recovered a jury verdict of $100,000, upon which judgment was entered. Respondent then moved to correct the judgment by adding interest at the rate of six percent from June 1, 1929, the date the action had been brought. The basis of the motion was the provision in § 480 of the New York Civil Practice Act directing that in contract actions interest be added to the principal sum whether theretofore liquidated or unliquidated. The District Court granted the motion, taking the view that the rights of the parties were governed by New York law and that under New York law the addition of such interest was mandatory. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari, limited to the question whether § 480 of the New York Civil Practice Act is applicable to an action in the federal court in Delaware.
View caseThe Sixth Amendment guarantees trial by a jury of the state and district wherein the crime was committed. This language ties both the state and the judicial district to the location of the offense rather than the defendant's residence or the government's convenience. A timely objection requires the court to honor that geographic limit.
Restatement sections use wherein to identify the states in which the Statute De Donis remains in force or has been modified. The word specifies the governing law that determines whether a conveyance creates a fee tail or a different estate. Courts apply the rule only in states meeting the described condition.
The amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the state wherein they reside. It then prohibits any state from abridging privileges or immunities or denying due process or equal protection. The clause therefore fixes both citizenship and the states subject to the listed restrictions.
…citation of the Sixth Amendment cases here seems to me best described as "the domino method of constitutional adjudication . . . wherein every explanatory statement in a previous opinion is made the basis for extension to a wholly different situation." Friendly, supra , n. 10, at 950. III. POLICY…