Citation network
Poindexter Vs. Greenhow
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 20, 1885
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
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 270 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Poindexter v. GreenhowSearch
-
U.S. 270 (1885) Poindexter v. GreenhowSearch
-
Rev.Stat. 16. The present case is not covered by the decision in Antoni v. GreenhowSearch
-
it was said by this Court, in Hartman v. GreenhowSearch
-
The same view had been taken by the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia in the cases of Antoni v. WrightSearch
-
Wise v. RogersSearch
-
Grattan 169, and Clarke v. TylerSearch
-
in the last of which cases it was declared to be the settled law of the state. It was repeated by this Court in Antoni v. GreenhowSearch
-
coupons, issued under that act tendered in payment of taxes, to compel him specifically to do so. The case of Hartman v. GreenhowSearch
-
U. S. 672 , was one in which that relief was administered, and in Antoni v. GreenhowSearch
-
payment of the taxes, and the money previously paid refunded. The validity of this act became the question in Antoni v. GreenhowSearch
-
officer of all authority for further action, and making every subsequent step illegal and void. In Woodruff v. TrapnallSearch
-
In the case of United States v. LeeSearch
-
citing Bennett v. HunterSearch
-
Taxey v. IrwinSearch
-
U. S. 183 , and Hills v. ExchangeSearch
-
been so abused to the detriment of both private and public interests. Accordingly, Chief Justice Marshall, in Craig v. MissouriSearch
-
This definition was made more exact by merely expressing, however, its implications, in Briscoe v. BankSearch
-
The definition was repeated in Darrington v. BankSearch
-
bills of credit. The notes of the Bank of the State of Arkansas, which were the subject of controversy in Woodruff v. TrapnallSearch
-
been decided by this Court since the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution are numerous. Fletcher v. PeckSearch
-
New Jersey v. WilsonSearch
-
Wolff v. NewSearch
-
of its intention, and not to be evaded by technical and trivial subtleties. Accordingly, it was held in New Hampshire v. LouisianaSearch
-
and New York v. LouisianaSearch
-
their claims, for the enforcement of which they could not sue in their own names. So, on the other hand, in Cunningham v. MaconSearch
-
And in illustration of this principle, reference was made to Mitchell v. HarmonySearch
-
Meigs v. McClung'sSearch
-
Page 114 U. S. 288 Grisar v. McDowellSearch
-
Wall. 363, and United States v LeeSearch
-
No better illustration of this principle can be found than that which is furnished by the case of United States v. LeeSearch
-
cemetery, was adjudged to the plaintiffs. The decision in that case was rested largely upon the authority of Osborn v. BankSearch
-
This language, it may be observed, was quoted with approval in United States v. LeeSearch
-
made in pursuance thereof. So that, while it is true in respect to the government of a state, as was said in Langford v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial