Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Douglass Vs. County of Pike

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 01, 1879

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

55 entries 2 linked 53 unlinked
Show
  1. County of Cass Vs. Johnston US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1877
    Relied / Followed
  2. Rowan Vs. Runnels US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1847
  3. Douglass v. County
    Search
  4. of Pike - 101 U.S. 677 (1879) U.S. Supreme Court Douglass v. County
    Search
  5. of Pike, 101 U.S. 677 (1879) Douglass v. County
    Search
  6. The court in this case adheres to its ruling in accordance with those decisions, as announced in County of Cass v. Johnston
    Search
  7. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court. We are asked to reconsider our decision in County of Cass v. Johnston
    Search
  8. U. S. 360 , because, since that case, the Supreme Court of Missouri, in State ex Rel. Woodson, v. Brassfield
    Search
  9. the time the act was in operation, from its original passage until after the recent decisions, remarked in Westerman v. Cape
    Search
  10. have been brought on these township bonds in the federal courts of this state, and prior to the decision in Harshman v. Bates
    Search
  11. opinion of the supreme court of the state on that subject. The act went into operation in 1868, and in 1869, The State v. Linn
    Search
  12. discrepancy between the act and the constitution was just as apparent then as it is now, and Judge Dillon, in Foote v. Johnson
    Search
  13. In County of Cass v. Johnston
    Search
  14. with the correctness of our former conclusion. It is thought, however, that we did not give sufficient effect to State v. Sutterfield
    Search
  15. The court then refers to Bassett v. The
    Search
  16. Mayor of St. Joseph, 37 Mo. 270, State v. Binder
    Search
  17. id. 450, and State v. Winkelmeier
    Search
  18. the two provisions of the constitution, and especially so as the judge who delivered the opinion of the court in State v. Sutterfield
    Search
  19. by his dissent in the later cases of State v. Brassfield
    Search
  20. sec. 1. At the February Term, 1866, of the supreme court of the state, that court was called on, in Bassett v. The
    Search
  21. was made for such subscriptions. Following this, at the October Term, 1866, of the same court, was the case of State v. Binder
    Search
  22. Mo. 450, in which similar language in another statute was construed, and Bassett v. The
    Search
  23. of those who did vote, and so are to be considered as equally bound and concluded by the result of the election. Rex v. Foxcroft
    Search
  24. the legislature to be the assent of the qualified voters. It was under this state of facts and the law that State v. Linn
    Search
  25. have accrued under earlier rulings will be injuriously affected. The language of Mr. Chief Justice Taney, in Rowan v. Runnels
    Search
  26. Trust Co. v. Debolt
    Search
  27. How. 416, the same learned Chief Justice, after reiterating what he had before said in Rowan v. Runnels
    Search
  28. This distinction has many times been recognized and acted upon. Supervisors v. United
    Search
  29. Fairfield v. County
    Search
  30. to use again the language of Mr. Chief Justice Taney in Rowan v. Runnels
    Search
  31. was made. The rules which properly govern courts in respect to their past adjudications are well expressed in Boyd v. Alabama
    Search
  32. inconsistent with this opinion as law and justice may require, and it is So ordered. NOTE -- In Darlington v. County
    Search
  33. by Mr. John B. Henderson for the plaintiff in error and by Mr. John C. Gage for the defendant in error, and in Foote v. County
    Search
  34. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court reversing the judgments below on the authority of Douglass v. County
    Search
  35. U.S. Supreme Court Douglass v. County
    Search
  36. Rel. Woodson, v. Brassfield
    Search
  37. Westerman v. Cape
    Search
  38. Harshman v. Bates
    Search
  39. The State v. Linn
    Search
  40. Foote v. Johnson
    Search
  41. State v. Sutterfield
    Search
  42. Bassett v. The
    Search
  43. State v. Binder
    Search
  44. and State v. Winkelmeier
    Search
  45. of State v. Brassfield
    Search
  46. of State v. Binder
    Search
  47. and Bassett v. The
    Search
  48. Rex v. Foxcroft
    Search
  49. State v. Linn
    Search
  50. Ohio Life Insurance & Trust Co. v. Debolt
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial