Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Luther Vs. Borden

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 01, 1849

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

64 entries 3 linked 61 unlinked
Show
  1. Elmendorf Vs. Taylor US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1825
  2. Bank of United States Vs. Daniel US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1838
  3. Vanhorne'S Lessee vs. Dorrance US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1795
  4. U.S. 1 (1849) U.S. Supreme Court Luther v. Borden
    Search
  5. U.S. 7 How. 1 1 (1849) Luther v. Borden
    Search
  6. be respected and enforced in its judicial tribunals. A question very similar to this arose in the case of Martin v. Mott
    Search
  7. of its decision, and to follow it. The judgment of the Circuit Court must therefore be affirmed. RACHEL LUTHER v. LUTHER
    Search
  8. or commensurate with that of the people themselves, but rather coordinate with that of the legislature. Kendall v. United
    Search
  9. and be put and kept in successful operation. The judiciary can then act in conformity to and under them. Kemper v. Hawkins
    Search
  10. Massachusetts v. Rhode
    Search
  11. political bodies, and sometimes by officers, executive or military, so as not to be revisable here. See Decatur v. Paulding
    Search
  12. alone. Several precedents in this court, as well as in England, show the propriety of it. In Foster et al. v. Neilson
    Search
  13. having been made in this manner, they must conform to. See also 6 Peters 31 U. S. 711 and Garcia v. Lee
    Search
  14. U. S. 13 Peters 419. In The Cherokee Nation v. The
    Search
  15. and construe and enforce its treaty obligations. Justice Johnson seemed decisive that it was. In Massachusetts v. Rhode
    Search
  16. tribunals unless agreed to be settled as a judicial question, and in the Constitution so provided for. Garcia v. Lee
    Search
  17. ib., 37 U. S. 520 . In Barclay v. Russel
    Search
  18. a political question, and a subject of treaty, and not of municipal jurisdiction. P. 434. In Nabob of the Carnatic v. The
    Search
  19. and Williams v. Suffolk
    Search
  20. Rose v. Himely
    Search
  21. Wheat. 634, and Gelston v. Hoyt
    Search
  22. in power, the judiciary must sustain its belligerent rights, see 3 Sumner 270. In the case of the City of Berne v. The
    Search
  23. which is objected to as irregularly made, or those under the old territorial government therein. Semb. 46 U. S. v. Jones
    Search
  24. validity of the statute on account of the political questions and objections just named. It was held also in Williams v. Suffolk
    Search
  25. bound to follow the decision of the State tribunals on their own constitutions and laws. See cases in Smith v. Babcock
    Search
  26. are given by Chief Justice Marshall with much clearness. It is only necessary to refer to his language in Elmendorf v. Taylor
    Search
  27. Pain v. Willard
    Search
  28. Grant v. Gould
    Search
  29. see cases cited in Boston v. Norris
    Search
  30. to disperse, and, if not dispersing, he may afterwards call out the militia to aid in effecting it. Martin v. Mott
    Search
  31. a refusal to obey such a military summons may be punished in due form, without doubt, by a court-martial. Houston v. Moore
    Search
  32. where the rebellion, or violent resistance, and even treason, as adjudged by the courts of law in The United States v. The
    Search
  33. Johnson v. Davis
    Search
  34. from the scene of military operations, nor after the resistance is over, nor to persons not connected with it. Grant v. Gould
    Search
  35. or property of citizens against whom no probable cause exists which Page 48 U. S. 84 may justify it. Sutton v. Johnston
    Search
  36. the sufferer is always allowed to resort, as here, to the judicial tribunals for redress. 4 Taunt. 67, and Baily v. Warder
    Search
  37. for it, which can be granted on motion below to amend the pleas in justification. Orders MARTIN LUTHER v. LUTHER
    Search
  38. the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed, with costs. RACHEL LUTHER v. LUTHER
    Search
  39. U.S. Supreme Court Luther v. Borden
    Search
  40. of Martin v. Mott
    Search
  41. Rachel Luther V. Luther
    Search
  42. Kendall v. United
    Search
  43. Kemper v. Hawkins
    Search
  44. See Decatur v. Paulding
    Search
  45. and Garcia v. Lee
    Search
  46. In The Cherokee Nation v. The
    Search
  47. In Massachusetts v. Rhode
    Search
  48. Garcia v. Lee
    Search
  49. In Barclay v. Russel
    Search
  50. In Nabob of the Carnatic v. The
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial