Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Ames Vs. Kansas

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 21, 1884

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

58 entries 2 linked 56 unlinked
Show
  1. Marbury Vs. Madison US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1803
  2. Boers Vs. Preston US Supreme Court · Apr 07, 1884
  3. U.S. 449 (1884) U.S. Supreme Court Ames v. Kansas
    Search
  4. U.S. 449 (1884) Ames v. Kansas
    Search
  5. courts from state courts without regard to the character of the parties. The reasoning and language in Cohens v. Virginia
    Search
  6. common law writ of quo warranto was a civil writ at the suit of the Crown, and not a criminal prosecution. Rex v. Marsden
    Search
  7. The King v. Francis
    Search
  8. any special legislation to that effect, has always been its character in many of the states of the Union. Commonwealth v. Browne
    Search
  9. State v. Hardie
    Search
  10. State Bank v. State
    Search
  11. State v. Lingo
    Search
  12. New Jersey, Arkansas, and Illinois, but in all these states it is used as a civil remedy only. Attorney General v. Utica
    Search
  13. People v. Jones
    Search
  14. State v. West
    Search
  15. State v. Ashley
    Search
  16. State v. Roe
    Search
  17. action to determine a civil right. This has been the construction put upon similar laws in other states. State v. McDaniel
    Search
  18. Central & Georgetown Railroad Company v. Taylor
    Search
  19. Commercial Bank of Rodney v. State
    Search
  20. the cases arise under these acts of Congress, for, to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall in Osborn v. United
    Search
  21. is so, it has never been doubted that a case is presented which arises under the laws of the United States. Cohens v. Virginia
    Search
  22. Gold Washing & Water Co. v. Keyes
    Search
  23. Railroad Company v. Mississippi
    Search
  24. judge agreed in opinion with Mr. Justice Wilson, and consequently the jurisdiction was sustained. United States v. Ravara
    Search
  25. On the 18th of February, 1793, just before the indictment against Ravara in the circuit court, the case of Chisholm v. Georgia
    Search
  26. in any court of the United States. Resolve of the Legislature of Mass. Sept. 27, 1793. In Marbury v. Madison
    Search
  27. but this was not necessary to the determination of the cause, and the Chief Justice himself, afterwards, in Cohens v. Virginia
    Search
  28. afterwards, in Cohens v. Virginia
    Search
  29. the general expressions in the case Marbury v. Madison
    Search
  30. In Cohens v. Virginia
    Search
  31. case is to be construed in connection with the general subject then under consideration. The same is true of Osborn v. United
    Search
  32. courts of the United States had jurisdiction of suits by and against the United States Bank. In United States v. Ortega
    Search
  33. exclusive, but it was not decided, because the suit was found not to be one affecting a public minister. In Davis v. Packard
    Search
  34. cases affecting consuls was, in 1838, directly presented to Chief Justice Taney on the circuit in the case of Gittings v. Crawford
    Search
  35. Afterwards, Mr. Justice Nelson, in the case of St. Luke's Hospital v. Barclay
    Search
  36. Blatch. 259, 265, in 1855, and in Graham v. Stucken
    Search
  37. been vested exclusively in the Supreme Court. Following these decisions we have held at the present term, in Boers v. Preston
    Search
  38. has been seen, it was not given by the Judiciary Act of 1789, and it did not exist in 1873, when the case of Wisconsin v. Duluth
    Search
  39. is whether the Constitution exempts the states from its operation. The same exemption was claimed in Cohens v. Virginia
    Search
  40. had not already been invested by law with exclusive cognizance. To quote again from Chief Justice Marshall, in Cohens v. Virginia
    Search
  41. U.S. Supreme Court Ames v. Kansas
    Search
  42. Cohens v. Virginia
    Search
  43. Rex v. Marsden
    Search
  44. of the Union. Commonwealth v. Browne
    Search
  45. Attorney General v. Utica
    Search
  46. State v. McDaniel
    Search
  47. Osborn v. United
    Search
  48. of the United States. Cohens v. Virginia
    Search
  49. United States v. Ravara
    Search
  50. of Chisholm v. Georgia
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial