CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

United States v. Peters

Wikimedia disambiguation page

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJun 20, 2022
Entity authorityQ16880293 ↗
Source-derived summary

United States v. Peters is the short case name of two United States Supreme Court decisions, both involving Richard Peters in his role as a United States district judge.

United States v. Peters, 3 U.S. 121 (1795), determining that the federal district court has no jurisdiction over a foreign privateer where the intended captured ship was not within the jurisdiction of the court

United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. 115 (1809)

It may also refer to the case United States v. Peters, (N.D. Ind. 2012) cited in the Supreme Court decision Florida v. Jardines.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “United States v. Peters” is wikimedia disambiguation page. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through United, States and Peters, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1795, 1809, 2012—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, United, States and Peters is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “wikimedia disambiguation page” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

Evidence profile

Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 20, 2022. The linked authority identifier is Q16880293. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1795, 1809 and 2012.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “United States v. Peters”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow United States v. Peters primary sources, United States v. Peters archive and United research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “United States v. Peters”?
  2. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
  3. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “United States v. Peters” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.