Queen v. Hepburn, 11 U.S. at 298Archived 2022-04-21 at the Wayback Machine (Duvall, J., dissenting). See Amy Coney Barrett. “The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court.” Columbia Law Review 106, no. 2 (2006): 374 n.189. JSTOR4099494. ("In 1831, the Court held that the Rules of Decision Act makes state evidentiary law binding in federal courts in civil cases. Hinde v. Vattier's Lessee, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 398, 401 (1831). But in civil cases decided before 1831, the Supreme Court typically applied federal general common law without addressing the choice-of-law problem. Indeed, in Queen v. Hepburn, the Court deliberately applied general common law rather than Maryland law, which recognized the hearsay exception advanced by the plaintiff.")
See Donnelly v. United StatesArchived 2022-05-31 at the Wayback Machine, 228 U.S. 243, 276–277 (1913) (After quoting Queen v. Hepburn at length, reciting cases: "This decision was adhered to in Davis v. Wood (1816), 1 Wheat. 6, 8; Lessee of Scott v. Ratliffe (1831), 5 Pet. 81, 86; Ellicott v. Pearl (1836), 10 Pet. 412, 436, 437; Wilson v. Simpson (1850), 9 How. 109, 121; Hopt v. Utah (1883), 110 U.S. 574, 581. And see United States v. Mulholland, 50 Fed. Rep. 413, 419.")
doi.org
Loren Schweninger. “Freedom Suits, African American Women, and the Genealogy of Slavery.” The William and Mary Quarterly 71, no. 1 (2014): 35–62, 60. doi:10.5309/willmaryquar.71.1.0035. From JSTOR.
"Mima Queen & Louisa Queen v. John Hepburn". In O Say Can You See: Early Washington, D.C., Law & Family, edited by William G. Thomas III, et al. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Archived from the original on September 15, 2015. Retrieved May 23, 2022.
"Mima Queen & Louisa Queen v. John Hepburn". In O Say Can You See: Early Washington, D.C., Law & Family, edited by William G. Thomas III, et al. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Archived from the original on May 23, 2022. Retrieved May 23, 2022.
jstor.org
Loren Schweninger. “Freedom Suits, African American Women, and the Genealogy of Slavery.” The William and Mary Quarterly 71, no. 1 (2014): 35–62, 60. doi:10.5309/willmaryquar.71.1.0035. From JSTOR.
Queen v. Hepburn, 11 U.S. at 298Archived 2022-04-21 at the Wayback Machine (Duvall, J., dissenting). See Amy Coney Barrett. “The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court.” Columbia Law Review 106, no. 2 (2006): 374 n.189. JSTOR4099494. ("In 1831, the Court held that the Rules of Decision Act makes state evidentiary law binding in federal courts in civil cases. Hinde v. Vattier's Lessee, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 398, 401 (1831). But in civil cases decided before 1831, the Supreme Court typically applied federal general common law without addressing the choice-of-law problem. Indeed, in Queen v. Hepburn, the Court deliberately applied general common law rather than Maryland law, which recognized the hearsay exception advanced by the plaintiff.")
Cooper v. Harris, 137 S.Ct. 1455Archived 2022-05-30 at the Wayback Machine, 1499 n.18 (2017) (Queen v. Hepburn, 7 Cranch 290, 296, 3 L.Ed. 348 (1813) (majority opinion of Marshall, C.J.) ("Its intrinsic weakness, its incompetency to satisfy the mind of the existence of the fact, and the frauds which might be practiced under its cover, combine to support the rule that hearsay evidence is totally inadmissible")).
ssrn.com
papers.ssrn.com
Jason A. Gillmer, "Suing for Freedom: Interracial Sex, Slave Law, and Racial Identity in the Post-Revolutionary and Antebellum South," North Carolina Law Review 82, no. 2 (January 2004): 584–588. Available online at SSRNArchived 2022-05-23 at the Wayback Machine.
"Mima Queen & Louisa Queen v. John Hepburn". In O Say Can You See: Early Washington, D.C., Law & Family, edited by William G. Thomas III, et al. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Archived from the original on September 15, 2015. Retrieved May 23, 2022.
Queen v. Hepburn, 11 U.S. at 298Archived 2022-04-21 at the Wayback Machine (Duvall, J., dissenting). See Amy Coney Barrett. “The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court.” Columbia Law Review 106, no. 2 (2006): 374 n.189. JSTOR4099494. ("In 1831, the Court held that the Rules of Decision Act makes state evidentiary law binding in federal courts in civil cases. Hinde v. Vattier's Lessee, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 398, 401 (1831). But in civil cases decided before 1831, the Supreme Court typically applied federal general common law without addressing the choice-of-law problem. Indeed, in Queen v. Hepburn, the Court deliberately applied general common law rather than Maryland law, which recognized the hearsay exception advanced by the plaintiff.")
"Mima Queen & Louisa Queen v. John Hepburn". In O Say Can You See: Early Washington, D.C., Law & Family, edited by William G. Thomas III, et al. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Archived from the original on May 23, 2022. Retrieved May 23, 2022.
Jason A. Gillmer, "Suing for Freedom: Interracial Sex, Slave Law, and Racial Identity in the Post-Revolutionary and Antebellum South," North Carolina Law Review 82, no. 2 (January 2004): 584–588. Available online at SSRNArchived 2022-05-23 at the Wayback Machine.
Cooper v. Harris, 137 S.Ct. 1455Archived 2022-05-30 at the Wayback Machine, 1499 n.18 (2017) (Queen v. Hepburn, 7 Cranch 290, 296, 3 L.Ed. 348 (1813) (majority opinion of Marshall, C.J.) ("Its intrinsic weakness, its incompetency to satisfy the mind of the existence of the fact, and the frauds which might be practiced under its cover, combine to support the rule that hearsay evidence is totally inadmissible")).
See Donnelly v. United StatesArchived 2022-05-31 at the Wayback Machine, 228 U.S. 243, 276–277 (1913) (After quoting Queen v. Hepburn at length, reciting cases: "This decision was adhered to in Davis v. Wood (1816), 1 Wheat. 6, 8; Lessee of Scott v. Ratliffe (1831), 5 Pet. 81, 86; Ellicott v. Pearl (1836), 10 Pet. 412, 436, 437; Wilson v. Simpson (1850), 9 How. 109, 121; Hopt v. Utah (1883), 110 U.S. 574, 581. And see United States v. Mulholland, 50 Fed. Rep. 413, 419.")
