Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Florida Vs. Georgia

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 01, 1854

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

69 entries 7 linked 62 unlinked
Show
  1. Mcnutt Vs. Bland US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1844
  2. Huff Vs. Hutchinson US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1852
  3. Wormley Vs. Wormley US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1823
  4. Carneal Vs. Banks US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1825
  5. Shields Vs. Barrow US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1854
  6. Mollan Vs. Torrance US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1824
  7. Marbury Vs. Madison US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1803
  8. U.S. 478 (1854) U.S. Supreme Court Florida v. Georgia
    Search
  9. U.S. 17 How. 478 478 (1854) Florida v. Georgia
    Search
  10. have acted in forming its proceedings where a state was a party defendant. The subject came before them in Grayson v. Virginia
    Search
  11. and were distinctly asserted in the case of Rhode Island v. Massachusetts
    Search
  12. and again in the same case in 40 U. S. 15 Pet. 273, and was recognized in the case of New Jersey v. New
    Search
  13. a department, and the United States, though exclusively interested, is not deemed a party to the controversy. Osborn v. Bank
    Search
  14. not the obligee in whose name it was brought, was the party to the suit within the meaning of the Constitution. Brown v. Strode
    Search
  15. whose names are on the docket or who argue the causes at the bar. He is not what was termed in the cases of Browne v. Strode
    Search
  16. by him, though in his name, will be done by the United States. Page 58 U. S. 500 The case of Georgia v. Brailsford
    Search
  17. the bar of this Court. 4 Dall. 1. Yet to give the Court jurisdiction, a state must be a party on the record. Osborne v. Bank
    Search
  18. in the name of its chief executive magistrate. So it was declared by the Court in the case of Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo
    Search
  19. itself a party to the record within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States. In Benton v. Woolsey
    Search
  20. gives notice to all concerned of the pendency of the proceedings, and thus enables them to become parties. In Rose v. Himely
    Search
  21. United States are plaintiffs, and so it has been administered to this day. There was a case of the United States v. Todd
    Search
  22. not reported, but it is stated from the record by MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY in a note to the case of the United States v. Ferreira
    Search
  23. The decision of this Court in Marbury v. Madison
    Search
  24. to act, and leave the parties to terminate their dispute by other means. This is declared by this Court in Hagan v. Walker
    Search
  25. How. 36, and the earlier cases lead to the same conclusion. Russell v. Clarke's
    Search
  26. Cameron v. Roberts
    Search
  27. West v. Randall
    Search
  28. could prevent the circuit court from exercising its jurisdiction over its own execution. The cases of Morgan's Heirs v. Morgan
    Search
  29. there held that a change of domicile did not defeat the jurisdiction which had once attached. In the case of Clarke v. Mathewson
    Search
  30. complete, and continued to enable the court to Page 58 U. S. 509 adjudicate on that subject matter. In Dun v. Clarke
    Search
  31. the equity side of the court to enable the court to control its own execution, and according to the case of Harris v. Hardeman
    Search
  32. excludes all original jurisdiction over such controversies, and even prevents Congress from conferring it. Marbury v. Madison
    Search
  33. and beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, such a case is without a precedent. 2 Chitty's Pr. 343. The case of Pentland v. Quorrington
    Search
  34. So in Drever v. Manderley
    Search
  35. more than any other suitor to prosecute any proceeding merely vexatious, or which had no legal object. The Queen v. Prosser
    Search
  36. Beav. 306. The cases cited, of Penn v. Lord
    Search
  37. Baltimore, Hovenden v. Annesly
    Search
  38. Attorney General v. Galway
    Search
  39. and the analogous cases of Dolder v. Bank
    Search
  40. of England and Burgess v. Wheat
    Search
  41. by the fact that they supposed their rights to be violated. The history will bear no other interpretation. In Chisolm v. Georgia
    Search
  42. form the basis of the luminous and masterly judgments in the English chancery in the case of Duke of Brunswick v. King
    Search
  43. U.S. Supreme Court Florida v. Georgia
    Search
  44. Grayson v. Virginia
    Search
  45. of Rhode Island v. Massachusetts
    Search
  46. of New Jersey v. New
    Search
  47. Osborn v. Bank
    Search
  48. of the Constitution. Brown v. Strode
    Search
  49. of Browne v. Strode
    Search
  50. of Georgia v. Brailsford
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial