Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

MartIn Vs. Waddell

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 01, 1842

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

35 entries 35 unlinked
Show
  1. U.S. 367 (1842) U.S. Supreme Court Martin v. Waddell
    Search
  2. U.S. 16 Pet. 367 367 (1842) Martin v. Waddell
    Search
  3. to the principles of the British Constitution, was the proper organ to dispose of the public domain. Cited, Johnson v. McIntosh
    Search
  4. grants of territory made on this continent. The doctrine upon this subject is clearly stated in the case of Johnson v. McIntosh
    Search
  5. reconciled. But from the opinions expressed by the justices of the Court of King's Bench in the case of Blundell v. Catterall
    Search
  6. Barn. & Ald. 287, 294, 304, 309, and in the case of Duke of Somerset v. Fogwell
    Search
  7. sanctioned by the courts. And the right now claimed was not seriously asserted on their part before the case of Arnold v. Mundy
    Search
  8. but to have been so possessed and enjoyed. A majority of the Court seems to have adopted the doctrine of Arnold v. Mundy
    Search
  9. the course of New Jersey in relation to this claim is hardly consistent with her pretensions. In the case of Arnold v. Mundy
    Search
  10. them. It surely would not be claimed by the state, it being no longer susceptible of public use. The case of Brown v. Kennedy
    Search
  11. a grant. In the argument of this case, the counsel on the part of the defendant referred to the case of Warren v. Matthews
    Search
  12. a valid grant could be made. At all events, it is very certain that the King's Bench, in the case of Carter v. Murcot
    Search
  13. did not recognize the doctrine of Warren v. Matthews
    Search
  14. the doctrine as laid down in the case of Page 41 U. S. 426 Carter v. Murcot
    Search
  15. have come before the courts in the State of New York, and the principles and rules as laid down in the case of Carter v. Murcot
    Search
  16. fully recognized and adopted. In the case of James v. Gould
    Search
  17. and cases are referred to showing such to be the settled law. In the case of Johnson v. McIntosh
    Search
  18. is one containing not only a grant of the soil, but of the powers of government. This Court, in the case of Johnson v. McIntosh
    Search
  19. The absolute ownership could not be expressed in a more full and unqualified a manner. In the case of Fairfax v. Hunter's
    Search
  20. of the powers of government surrendered by the proprietors to Queen Anne, and it is only since the decision in Arnold v. Mundy
    Search
  21. and in the case of Rogers v. Allen
    Search
  22. U.S. Supreme Court Martin v. Waddell
    Search
  23. Cited, Johnson v. McIntosh
    Search
  24. of Johnson v. McIntosh
    Search
  25. of Blundell v. Catterall
    Search
  26. of Duke of Somerset v. Fogwell
    Search
  27. of Arnold v. Mundy
    Search
  28. of Brown v. Kennedy
    Search
  29. of Warren v. Matthews
    Search
  30. of Carter v. Murcot
    Search
  31. Carter v. Murcot
    Search
  32. of James v. Gould
    Search
  33. of Fairfax v. Hunter's
    Search
  34. Arnold v. Mundy
    Search
  35. of Rogers v. Allen
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial