Citation network
Mesa Vs. California
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 21, 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. 121 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Mesa v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U.S. 121 (1989) Mesa v. CaliforniaSearch
-
prosecutions against them, the liberal pleadings sufficient to allege such a defense that were permitted in Willingham v. MorganSearch
-
The United States, largely adopting the view taken by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Pennsylvania v. NewcomerSearch
-
a) or one of its long line of statutory forebears. In Willingham v. MorganSearch
-
is not hard to discern. As this Court said . . . in Tennessee v. DavisSearch
-
Id. at 395 U. S. 406 . Tennessee v. DavisSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
In Tennessee v. DavisSearch
-
Davis, we had considered the scope of congressional power to authorize the removal of a civil case in The Mayor v. CooperSearch
-
on the allegation of a colorable federal defense. The United States argues that Cleveland, C., C. & I. R. Co. v. McClungSearch
-
against civil suits. Both are equally defensive, and equally based in federal law. A later railroad case, Gay v. RuffSearch
-
Id. at 292 U. S. 39 . Finally, the Government relies on Maryland v. SoperSearch
-
would be permissible under either the statute or the Constitution. Similarly, we do not understand Willingham v. MorganSearch
-
he allegedly had received while imprisoned. The officials sought removal on official immunity grounds. See Barr v. MatteoSearch
-
Westfall v. ErwinSearch
-
and has remained in every version of the removal statute that we have interpreted since we decided Tennessee v. DavisSearch
-
by the 1948 enactment -- by the Act of August 23, 1916, ch. 399, 39 Stat. 532. We considered this provision in Gay v. RuffSearch
-
Id. at 461 U. S. 496 , citing The Propeller Genesee Chief v. FitzhughSearch
-
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. ThompsonSearch
-
Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. MottleySearch
-
that clearly preserves its constitutionality and adopt one which raises serious constitutional doubt. See Califano v. YamasakiSearch
-
may be avoided,' Crowell v. BensonSearch
-
specifically directed against federal officers' efforts to carry out their federally mandated duties. E.g., Tennessee v. DavisSearch
-
U. S. 257 (1880). As we said in Maryland v. SoperSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Mesa v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Willingham v. MorganSearch
-
Pennsylvania v. NewcomerSearch
-
In Willingham v. MorganSearch
-
Tennessee v. DavisSearch
-
Cleveland, C., C. & I. R. Co. v. McClungSearch
-
See Barr v. MatteoSearch
-
The Propeller Genesee Chief v. FitzhughSearch
-
See Califano v. YamasakiSearch
-
E.g., Tennessee v. DavisSearch
-
Maryland v. SoperSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial