• Facets (new session)
• Description
• Metadata
• Settings
  • Rule: ActivityStreamsMapasEquivalentb3sb3sifpdbprdf-labelfacetshttp://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/dbpedia#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/opencyc#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/umbel#http://dbpedia.org/resource/inference/rules/yago#http://dbpedia.org/schema/property_rules#http://www.ontologyportal.org/inference/rules/SUMO#http://www.ontologyportal.org/inference/rules/WordNet#http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#ldpoplwebskos-transurn:det:rdf:labelvirtrdf-labelvirtrdf-urlNone
    
  • Inverse Functional Properties: Disabled (fastest) Apply to subjects only Apply to objects only Apply to both subjects and objects
  • "Same As": Disabled (fastest) Apply to subjects only Apply to objects only Apply to both subjects and objects (recommended) Apply to subjects, objects and predicates (not recommended on big datasets) Apply to predicates only (special use cases only)

About: United States v. Wheeler (1920)     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : yago:WikicatPrivilegesAndImmunitiesCaseLaw, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)

Type: ThingcaseLegal Caseunit of workLegal caseyago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCasesyago:Abstraction100002137yago:Act100030358yago:Activity100407535yago:Advantage105155821yago:Asset105154517yago:Attribute100024264yago:Capture100775286yago:Case107308889yago:Crime100766234yago:Event100029378yago:Felony100768701yago:Happening107283608yago:Kidnapping100775702yago:Privilege105158296yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100yago:Quality104723816yago:WikicatKidnappingsInTheUnitedStatesyago:Wrongdoing100732746yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntitySupreme Court of the United States caseyago:Transgression100745005yago:WikicatPrivilegesAndImmunitiesCaseLaw New Facet based on Instances of this Class

United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920), was an 8-to-1 landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that held that the Constitution alone does not grant the federal government the power to prosecute kidnappers, even if moving abductees across state lines on federally-regulated railroads at the behest of local law enforcement officials, and only the states have the authority to punish a private citizen's unlawful violation of another's freedom of movement. The case was a landmark interpretation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution, and contains a classic legal statement of the right to travel which continues to undergird American jurisprudence.