Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Holmes Vs. Jennison

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 01, 1840

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

47 entries 47 unlinked
Show
  1. U.S. 540 (1840) U.S. Supreme Court Holmes v. Jennison
    Search
  2. U.S. 14 Pet. 540 540 (1840) Holmes v. Jennison
    Search
  3. the proceedings had not been suspended in consequence of the writ of error to this Court. In the case of Weston v. Charleston
    Search
  4. to discharge a party brought before it on a habeas corpus. And in the reign of Queen Anne, in the case of the Queen v. Paty
    Search
  5. cases. They are collected together and fully examined in the Court for the Correction of Errors in the case of Yates v. New
    Search
  6. was sufficient in law to authorize his arrest and detention. Certainly no such decision was given in the case of Queen v. Paty
    Search
  7. The first case in which this question appears to have arisen was that of Columbian Insurance Company v. Wheelright
    Search
  8. Page 39 U. S. 566 The same interpretation was again given to this act of Congress in the case of Kendall v. United
    Search
  9. nature of the decision, were brought forward and considered by the Court. But the case of Columbian Insurance Company v. Wheelright
    Search
  10. writs under the twenty-second section and under the act relating to the District of Columbia. But the case of Weston v. Charleston
    Search
  11. in such a case was then an open one upon which the two Houses differed in opinion. In New York, in the case of Yates v. People
    Search
  12. The power of the states in that respect was fully considered by this Court and decided, in the case of New York v. Miln
    Search
  13. the grant of the same power to the United States, and that, in the language of this Court in the case of Sturges v. Crowningshield
    Search
  14. doubt, the true one in relation to the grants of power to which it is applied in the case above mentioned of Sturges v. Crowningshield
    Search
  15. itself carry with it an implied prohibition to the states to exercise the same powers. But in the same case of Sturges v. Crowningshield
    Search
  16. In the language Page 39 U. S. 578 of the Supreme Court, in the case of Houston v. Moore
    Search
  17. this Court has not jurisdiction at all of the case, these points are of minor importance. In the case of Crowell v. Randall
    Search
  18. is certainly no general power vested in this Court to revise any other cases. And according to the case of Crowell v. Randall
    Search
  19. This argument is at once met and repelled by the decision of this Court in the case of Barron v. Baltimore
    Search
  20. because it is not only decided in the case just cited, but it is also declared in the case of Lessee of Livingston v. Moore
    Search
  21. I now proceed to the examination of some of the cases in this Court in relation to this question. In Sturges v. Crowningshield
    Search
  22. of Congress. In 18 U. S. 5 Wheat. 21, Judge Washington, in delivering the opinion in the case of Houston v. Moore
    Search
  23. been competent to the state governments to have done so in such manner as they might think proper. In Wilson v. Blackbird
    Search
  24. of the same power by the states. It is said by one of the judges, in delivering his opinion in the case of Houston v. Moore
    Search
  25. he gives as examples of this the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, for which he refers to Chirac v. Chirac
    Search
  26. enacted by Congress. The remark then was made in relation to a power which had been executed. But the case of Sturges v. Crowningshield
    Search
  27. was decided after that of Chirac v. Chirac
    Search
  28. up clearly require this construction, but this Court has expressly decided the question in the case of Jackson v. Lamphire
    Search
  29. U.S. Supreme Court Holmes v. Jennison
    Search
  30. of Weston v. Charleston
    Search
  31. of the Queen v. Paty
    Search
  32. of Yates v. New
    Search
  33. of Queen v. Paty
    Search
  34. of Columbian Insurance Company v. Wheelright
    Search
  35. of Kendall v. United
    Search
  36. of Yates v. People
    Search
  37. of New York v. Miln
    Search
  38. of Sturges v. Crowningshield
    Search
  39. of Houston v. Moore
    Search
  40. of Crowell v. Randall
    Search
  41. of Barron v. Baltimore
    Search
  42. of Lessee of Livingston v. Moore
    Search
  43. In Sturges v. Crowningshield
    Search
  44. In Wilson v. Blackbird
    Search
  45. Chirac v. Chirac
    Search
  46. of Chirac v. Chirac
    Search
  47. of Jackson v. Lamphire
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial