Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Taylor Vs. Ypsilanti

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 01, 1881

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 2 linked 38 unlinked
Show
  1. Township of Pine Grove Vs. Talcott US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1873
  2. The City Vs. Lamson US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1869
  3. U.S. 60 (1881) U.S. Supreme Court Taylor v. Ypsilanti
    Search
  4. U.S. 60 (1881) Taylor v. Ypsilanti
    Search
  5. constitute no defense to an action on the bonds. 2. The Court adheres to the ruling in Township of Pine Grove v. Talcott
    Search
  6. March 22, 1869, is repugnant to the Constitution of Michigan as expounded by its highest judicial tribunal in People v. Salem
    Search
  7. Bay City v. State
    Search
  8. between railroad corporations and the public. The earliest case, to which our attention has been called is Swan v. Williams
    Search
  9. taxation property used for such purposes. Laws Mich., 1859, p. 551. That law was subsequently amended, and in People v. State
    Search
  10. to the amendatory statute reducing the bounty. And the doctrines of that case were reaffirmed in East Saginaw Mfg. Co. v. City
    Search
  11. under its contract with the city, and was entitled to the required certificate from the governor -- the case of People v. Salem
    Search
  12. The conclusion in that case, as thereafter declared in Bay City v. State
    Search
  13. at the root of all legislation in aid of railroad companies. We remark in passing that the doctrines of People v. Salem
    Search
  14. courts of a large majority of the states. It was said by Mr. Justice Clifford, speaking for the Court in Rogers v. Burlington
    Search
  15. subject, in the interest of the public, to governmental control and regulation. Subsequently, in Bay City v. State
    Search
  16. Treasurer, the Supreme Court of Michigan reaffirmed the doctrines of People v. Salem
    Search
  17. People v. Salem
    Search
  18. cases, since they are in line with those made in the two to which we have referred. In January, 1872, Talcott v. Township
    Search
  19. in suit were issued. That court, the circuit and district judges concurring, declined to follow the case of People v. Salem
    Search
  20. Upon writ of error, the judgment was affirmed in this Court at its October Term, 1873. Township of Pine Grove v. Talcott
    Search
  21. Wall. 666. In the argument here, attention was called to the decisions in People v. Salem
    Search
  22. and Bay City v. state
    Search
  23. Swayne, affirmed the judgment, holding the act to be consistent with the Constitution of Michigan. Railroad Company v. County
    Search
  24. Olcott v. Supervisors
    Search
  25. said Mr. Chief Justice Taney in Ohio life Ins. Co. v. Debolt
    Search
  26. So, in The City v. Lamson
    Search
  27. Again, in Olcott v. The
    Search
  28. To the like effect are some very recent decisions of this Court. In Douglass v. County
    Search
  29. U.S. Supreme Court Taylor v. Ypsilanti
    Search
  30. People v. Salem
    Search
  31. Swan v. Williams
    Search
  32. People v. State
    Search
  33. East Saginaw Mfg. Co. v. City
    Search
  34. of People v. Salem
    Search
  35. Rogers v. Burlington
    Search
  36. Talcott v. Township
    Search
  37. the Constitution of Michigan. Railroad Company v. County
    Search
  38. Ins. Co. v. Debolt
    Search
  39. Olcott v. The
    Search
  40. Court. In Douglass v. County
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial