Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Pernell Vs. Southall Realty

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 24, 1974

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

78 entries 4 linked 74 unlinked
Show
  1. Ross Vs. Bernhard US Supreme Court · Feb 02, 1970
  2. Curtis Vs. Loether US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1974
  3. Capital Traction Co. Vs. Hof US Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1899
  4. Lindsey Vs. Normet US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1972
  5. Pernell v. Southall
    Search
  6. Realty - 416 U.S. 363 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Pernell v. Southall
    Search
  7. Realty, 416 U.S. 363 (1974) Pernell v. Southall
    Search
  8. Kass v. Baskin
    Search
  9. United States v. Thirty-seven
    Search
  10. absent a constitutional claim or a problem of general federal law of nationwide application. See, e.g., Griffin v. United
    Search
  11. Fisher v. United
    Search
  12. States, 328 U. S. 463 , 328 U. S. 476 (1946). See also Miller v. United
    Search
  13. sense that we are barred from reconsidering a state court's interpretation of a state statute. See, e.g., O'Brien v. Skinner
    Search
  14. Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa
    Search
  15. Griffin v. United
    Search
  16. Rights, it is fully applicable to courts established by Congress in the District of Columbia. See Capital Traction Co. v. Hof
    Search
  17. to recover land, like actions for damages to a person or property, are actions at law triable to a jury. In Whitehead v. Shattuck
    Search
  18. Scott v. Neely
    Search
  19. between title to and possession of property, of course, was well recognized at common law. See Grant Timber & Mfg. Co. v. Gray
    Search
  20. Parsons v. Bedford
    Search
  21. of the sort traditionally enforced in an action at law, rather than in an action in equity or admiralty. See Curtis v. Loether
    Search
  22. came to be established in the Seventh Amendment. Respondent relies primarily on our decision in Capital Traction Co. v. Hof
    Search
  23. Page 416 U. S. 382 IV The Court of Appeals also relied on our opinion in Block v. Hirsh
    Search
  24. A.2d at 496. We think the Court of Appeals misunderstood the rationale of this case. Block v. Hirsh
    Search
  25. proceedings, where jury trials would be incompatible with the whole concept of administrative adjudication. See Curtis v. Loether
    Search
  26. U.S. at 415 U. S. 194 . See also NLRB v. Jones
    Search
  27. involves rights and remedies recognized at common law, it must preserve to parties their right to a jury trial. Curtis v. Loether
    Search
  28. and the right to jury trial. We note, for example, that the Oregon landlord-tenant procedure at issue in Lindsey v. Normet
    Search
  29. been complied with and that the premises are not being maintained in a habitable condition by the landlord. See Javins v. First
    Search
  30. Superior Court and Court of Appeals must be treated as state courts for all purposes. Cf. District of Columbia v. Carter
    Search
  31. through 16-909. Other unresolved questions involve the extent to which the principles of Younger v. Harris
    Search
  32. and related cases apply to the relationship between the District's two court systems. See generally Sullivan v. Murphy
    Search
  33. See T. Plucknett, A Concise History of the Common Law 341 (4th ed.1948). See also Grant Timber & Mfg. Co. v. Gray
    Search
  34. Little v. Heaton
    Search
  35. West v. Davis
    Search
  36. Flower v. Darby
    Search
  37. Spencer v. Godwin
    Search
  38. Ash v. Calvert
    Search
  39. See Whitehead v. Shattuck
    Search
  40. U. S. 146 (1891). See also Doe d. Cheny v. Batten
    Search
  41. Charter v. Cordwent
    Search
  42. Shapiro v. Christopher
    Search
  43. Service Parking Corp. v. Trans-Lux
    Search
  44. Shipley v. Major
    Search
  45. The 1864 Act was essentially the same as an 1836 Massachusetts statute. See Willis v. Eastern
    Search
  46. detainer were derived from the English forcible entry and detainer statutes, including that of Henry VI. See Page v. Dwight
    Search
  47. Boyle v. Boyle
    Search
  48. Suits were brought, for example, in the name of the State. See, e.g., The King v. Wilson
    Search
  49. The King v. Harris
    Search
  50. The King v. Dormy
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial