Citation network
Barry Vs. Edmunds
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 07, 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
-
U.S. 550 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Barry v. EdmundsSearch
-
U.S. 550 (1886) Barry v. EdmundsSearch
-
he knew that the Supreme Court of the United States had decided at its October term, 1884, in the case of Poindexter v. GreenhowSearch
-
defeat and destroy the effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States in said case of Poindexter v. GreenhowSearch
-
The plaintiff below sued out this writ of error to review that judgment. The case was argued with Chaffin v. TaylorSearch
-
post, 116 U. S. 567 , Royall v. VirginiaSearch
-
post, 116 U. S. 572 , and Sands v. EdmundsSearch
-
This is quite consistent with what was said in Smith v. GreenhowSearch
-
jurisdiction, notwithstanding the damages were laid in the declaration at a larger sum. In the early case of Wilson v. DanielSearch
-
is liquidated by the terms of the agreement, fixes the limit of a possible recovery. Such was the case of Lee v. WatsonSearch
-
As was said in Hilton v. DickinsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
In Bowman v. ChicagoSearch
-
said Mr. Justice Grier in Day v. WoodworthSearch
-
In Tracy v. SwartwoutSearch
-
Baltimore Railroad Co. v. QuigleySearch
-
In Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. ArmsSearch
-
In Missouri Pacific Page 116 U. S. 564 Railway Co. v. HumesSearch
-
In the English Court of Common Pleas, it was held in the case of Bell v. MidlandSearch
-
rights under an act of Parliament, that exemplary damages might justly be given. And the rule was applied in Emblem v. MyersSearch
-
In Johnson v. HannahanSearch
-
In Kolb v. BankheadSearch
-
the recoverable damages, it is the peculiar function of the jury to determine the amount by their verdict. In Whipple v. CumberlandSearch
-
the jury itself is the appointed constitutional tribunal to award Page 116 U. S. 566 The case of Beardmore v. CarringtonSearch
-
but a remedy and prevention for the greater wrong and injury involved in the apprehension of its repetition. Huckle v. MoneySearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Barry v. EdmundsSearch
-
of Poindexter v. GreenhowSearch
-
and Sands v. EdmundsSearch
-
of Wilson v. DanielSearch
-
of Lee v. WatsonSearch
-
In Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad Co. v. QuigleySearch
-
Railway Co. v. HumesSearch
-
of Bell v. MidlandSearch
-
Emblem v. MyersSearch
-
In Whipple v. CumberlandSearch
-
of Beardmore v. CarringtonSearch
-
Huckle v. MoneySearch
-
Chaffin v. TaylorSearch
-
Royall v. VirginiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial