Citation network
Asarco Vs. Kadish
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 30, 1989
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
-
U.S. 605 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court ASARCO v. KadishSearch
-
U.S. 605 (1989) Asarco V. KadishSearch
-
the original mineral land exclusion inapplicable to lands not known to be mineral at the time of the grant, Wyoming v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the judgment below comes within two of the exceptions to the finality requirement set out in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. CohnSearch
-
in lower federal courts of a decision reached by the highest state court, District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. FeldmanSearch
-
Rooker v. FidelitySearch
-
and express language, upon the specific requirements for leasing or selling those lands. Petitioners' reliance on Neel v. BarkerSearch
-
mineral in nature, is flawed in two respects. First, Neel did not take into account this Court's decision in Wyoming v. UnitedSearch
-
Kadish v. ArizonaSearch
-
but they withdrew the last request on appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. See Brief for Appellant in Kadish v. ArizonaSearch
-
below comes within two of the exceptions to the finality requirement that were set out in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. CohnSearch
-
Duquesne Light Co. v. BaraschSearch
-
rise to any further federal question. Cox, supra, at 420 U. S. 480 , quoting Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. JohnsonSearch
-
controlling elements in the definition of a case or controversy under Article III. See Valley Forge Christian College v. AmericansSearch
-
Frothingham v. MellonSearch
-
U. S. 447 , 262 U. S. 487 (1923) (decided with Massachusetts v. MellonSearch
-
Frothingham, supra, at 262 U. S. 486 -487, citing Crampton v. ZabriskieSearch
-
Page 490 U. S. 614 pecuniary or otherwise. Doremus v. BoardSearch
-
in concluding that relief is likely to follow from a favorable decision here than we had in cases like Allen v. WrightSearch
-
U. S. 737 (1984), and Simon v. EasternSearch
-
brought by concerned citizens that we have consistently held are not cognizable in the federal courts. See Los Angeles v. LyonsSearch
-
see also Schlesinger v. ReservistsSearch
-
that a party may establish standing by raising claims of noneconomic injury, see, e.g., Gladstone, Realtors v. VillageSearch
-
Trafficante v. MetropolitanSearch
-
as when they are called upon to interpret the Constitution or, in this case, a federal statute. See, e.g., Pennell v. SanSearch
-
Bateman v. ArizonaSearch
-
Highland Farms Dairy, Inc. v. AgnewSearch
-
Grubb v. PublicSearch
-
the kind of injury cognizable in this Court on review from the state courts. See, e.g., Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. WallaceSearch
-
least on some occasions when a case becomes moot while it is pending on review from a state court, see, e.g., DeFunis v. OdegaardSearch
-
Minnesota v. NationalSearch
-
Trust Page 490 U. S. 622 Co. of Kansas City v. SwopeSearch
-
the binding application of federal law is uniform, and ultimately subject to control by this Court. See Richardson v. RamirezSearch
-
by the highest state court, for such authority is vested solely in this Court. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. FeldmanSearch
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. LocomotiveSearch
-
and independent state ground that would defeat review of the federal issues by this Court. See, e.g., Fox Film Corp. v. MullerSearch
-
did not divorce the state constitutional issue from the questions of federal law. See Enterprise Irrigation Dist. v. CanalSearch
-
quoting Murphy v. StateSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial