Citation network
Wilkes Vs. Dinsman
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
-
U.S. 89 (1849) U.S. Supreme Court Wilkes v. DinsmanSearch
-
U.S. 7 How. 89 89 (1849) Wilkes v. DinsmanSearch
-
Samuel Dinsman V. CharlesSearch
-
this letter related to that material transaction, and was a part of the res gestae, it seems competent. Ridley v. GydeSearch
-
Hadley v. CarterSearch
-
Aiken v. BemisSearch
-
the parties then being the same likewise, and the tribunal acquitting competent to examine and acquit. Aspden v. NixonSearch
-
Burnham v. WebsterSearch
-
Hannaford v. HunnSearch
-
the court-martial, and the courts of common law have jurisdiction over the wrong, though committed at sea. Warden v. BaileySearch
-
Wilson v. McKenzieSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Luscomb v. PrinceSearch
-
repeated, even on the same day, constitutes a second offense, and incurs an additional penalty. Brooks qui tam v. MillikenSearch
-
personally, but in resorting to any reasonable measures necessary to produce submission and safety. See Cobley v. FullerSearch
-
Jay v. AllenSearch
-
United States v. NetcherSearch
-
Wilson v. MarySearch
-
Nor can a mandamus issue to such an officer if he is entrusted with discretion over the subject matter. Paulding v. DecaturSearch
-
Kendall v. UnitedSearch
-
Evans v. FosterSearch
-
jurisdiction and where he has a discretion, are to be presumed legal till shown by others to be unjustifiable. Gidley v. PalmerstonSearch
-
Vanderheyden v. YoungSearch
-
manner not confided to him, as with malice, cruelty, or willful oppression, or, in the words of Lord Mansfield in Wall v. McNamaraSearch
-
is not enough to show he committed an error in judgment, but it must have been a malicious and willful error. Harman v. TappendenSearch
-
and this country, and even in this Court, in illustration of the soundness of these positions. Thus, in Drewe v. CoultonSearch
-
See these last cases collected in Seaman v. PattenSearch
-
Caines 313, 315. In a case in this country, Jenkins v. WaldronSearch
-
Similar views were again expressed by the same court in the same volume, (p. 160) in Vanderheyden v. YoungSearch
-
But there is no liability in such case without malice alleged and proved. Wheeler v. PattersonSearch
-
N.H. 90. Finally, in this Court like views were expressed through Justice Story in Martin v. MottSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Wilkes v. DinsmanSearch
-
Ridley v. GydeSearch
-
Warden v. BaileySearch
-
See Cobley v. FullerSearch
-
Paulding v. DecaturSearch
-
Gidley v. PalmerstonSearch
-
Wall v. McNamaraSearch
-
Harman v. TappendenSearch
-
Drewe v. CoultonSearch
-
Seaman v. PattenSearch
-
Jenkins v. WaldronSearch
-
Wheeler v. PattersonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial