Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Prigg Vs. Pennsylvania

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

40 entries 1 linked 39 unlinked
Show
  1. Cohens Vs. Virginia US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1821
  2. U.S. 539 (1842) U.S. Supreme Court Prigg v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  3. U.S. 16 Pet. 539 539 (1842) Prigg v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  4. be that the state legislatures have a right to interfere. This doctrine was fully recognized in the case of Houston v. Moore
    Search
  5. and the Judiciary have, upon various occasions, acted upon this as a sound and reasonable doctrine. Cited, Stuart v. Laird
    Search
  6. Martin v. Hunter's
    Search
  7. power of legislation in relation to fugitives from labor is exclusive in the National Legislature. Cited, Sturgis v. Crowninshield
    Search
  8. Sec. v. Every
    Search
  9. A more limited but, at the same time, an equally expressive, definition was given by Lord Dyer, as cited in Stowel v. Zouch
    Search
  10. is as the direct provisions made by it. This doctrine was fully recognized by this Court, in the case of Houston v. Moore
    Search
  11. and Pennsylvania, and, on all these occasions, its validity has been affirmed. The cases cited at the bar, of Wright v. Deacon
    Search
  12. Glen v. Hodges
    Search
  13. Jack v. Martin
    Search
  14. and Commonwealth v. Griffin
    Search
  15. occasions, acted upon this as a sound and reasonable doctrine. Especially did this Court, in the cases of Stuart v. Laird
    Search
  16. Cranch 299, and Martin v. Hunter's
    Search
  17. Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, and in Cohens v. Virginia
    Search
  18. and we shall now proceed briefly to state our reasons for that opinion. The doctrine stated by this Court in Sturgis v. Crowninshield
    Search
  19. effectual, it should be construed to be exclusive of state authority. We adopt the language of this Court in Sturgis v. Crowninshield
    Search
  20. rests upon more than one of its decisions upon the constitutional action of state authorities. In the case of Sturgis v. Crowninshield
    Search
  21. In the case of Houston v. Moore
    Search
  22. In the case or the City of New York v. Miln
    Search
  23. lays down the following position (p. 36 U. S. 137 ), as directly deducible from the decision in Gibbons v. Ogden
    Search
  24. Wheat. 204, and Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  25. yet, in the cases of fugitives from labor and from justice, they have the power to do so. In the case of Martin v. Hunter's
    Search
  26. and, like many other powers in that instrument, require legislation. In the language of this Court in Martin v. Hunter's
    Search
  27. U.S. Supreme Court Prigg v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  28. of Houston v. Moore
    Search
  29. Cited, Stuart v. Laird
    Search
  30. the National Legislature. Cited, Sturgis v. Crowninshield
    Search
  31. Stowel v. Zouch
    Search
  32. of Wright v. Deacon
    Search
  33. of Stuart v. Laird
    Search
  34. and Martin v. Hunter's
    Search
  35. Sturgis v. Crowninshield
    Search
  36. of Sturgis v. Crowninshield
    Search
  37. the City of New York v. Miln
    Search
  38. and Brown v. Maryland
    Search
  39. of Martin v. Hunter's
    Search
  40. Gibbons v. Ogden
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial