Citation network
Norton Vs. Shelby County
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 10, 1886
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
-
Norton v. ShelbySearch
-
County - 118 U.S. 425 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Norton v. ShelbySearch
-
County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) Norton v. ShelbySearch
-
federal courts. Page 118 U. S. 426 Following the decision of the highest court of the Tennessee in Pope v. PhiferSearch
-
as those conferred upon the Commissioners of Shelby County. The case in which such consideration was had was Pope v. PhiferSearch
-
the decision of the state court. As said by MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY, speaking for the court in Claiborne County v. BrooksSearch
-
federal courts could not disregard the decision, and declare that it was a law, and enforce it as such. South Ottawa v. PerkinsSearch
-
it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. In Hildreth v. M'IntireSearch
-
any more than the legislative tribunal of Kentucky could hold the Court of Appeals of that state. In Shelby County v. ButterworthSearch
-
and exercises its powers and functions. As said by Mr. Justice Manning, of the Supreme Court of Michigan, in Carleton v. PeopleSearch
-
The case of State v. CarrollSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the cases cited by him in support of the last position, to some of which reference will be made. One of them, Taylor v. SkrineSearch
-
office, the duties of which the legal incumbent was temporarily incapable of discharging. Another case is Cocke v. HalseySearch
-
valid as those of an officer de facto. Here, the office was an existing one, created by law. To Carleton v. PeopleSearch
-
subsequently entered upon the duties of those offices, it was held that they were officers de facto. In Clark v. CommonwealthSearch
-
judge to exercise it. It is evident from a consideration of these cases that the learned chief justice, in State v. CarrollSearch
-
the officer, and not of acts creating the office. Other cases cited by counsel will show a similar view. In Brown v. O'ConnellSearch
-
a police court, and the appointee of the common council was held to be a judge de facto. The case of Blackburn v. StateSearch
-
held that he could be removed by a proper proceeding, but until that was done, his acts were binding. In Fowler v. BebeeSearch
-
and implies that the person or body ratifying has at the time power to do the act ratified. As we said in Marsh v. FultonSearch
-
County of Daviess v. DickinsonSearch
-
McCracken v. CitySearch
-
election was had. The requirement of the law could not, in this indirect way, be evaded. The case of Aspinwall v. CommissionersSearch
-
previously had, and a majority of the voters had voted for it. The doctrine of this case was reaffirmed in Wadsworth v. SupervisorsSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Norton v. ShelbySearch
-
Pope v. PhiferSearch
-
South Ottawa v. PerkinsSearch
-
In Hildreth v. M'IntireSearch
-
In Shelby County v. ButterworthSearch
-
Carleton v. PeopleSearch
-
of State v. CarrollSearch
-
Taylor v. SkrineSearch
-
To Carleton v. PeopleSearch
-
In Clark v. CommonwealthSearch
-
State v. CarrollSearch
-
In Brown v. O'ConnellSearch
-
of Blackburn v. StateSearch
-
In Fowler v. BebeeSearch
-
Marsh v. FultonSearch
-
County of Daviess v. DickinsonSearch
-
of Aspinwall v. CommissionersSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial