Citation network
Robinson Vs. Fair
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Oct 22, 1888
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. 53 (1888) U.S. Supreme Court Robinson v. FairSearch
-
U.S. 53 (1888) Robinson v. FairSearch
-
It must be confessed that some support for this position is found in the general language employed in Zander v. CoeSearch
-
People v. FowlerSearch
-
Cal. 85, and Caulfield v. StevensSearch
-
Cal. 118. In Zander v. CoeSearch
-
on one court the functions and powers which had been conferred by the Constitution upon another court. In People v. FowlerSearch
-
to the court of sessions from a judgment in a criminal case tried in a justice's court, the court, referring to Zander v. CoeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
In Caulfield v. StevensSearch
-
was unconstitutional. Whether the court had in view the rule of constitutional construction announced in Zander v. CoeSearch
-
and People v. FowlerSearch
-
it is impossible to say, for no reference is made to either case. As pointed out in Courtwright v. BearSearch
-
Mining Co., 30 Cal. 574, the decision in Caulfield v. StevensSearch
-
Section 9. Prior to Caulfield v. StevensSearch
-
Estate of De Castro v. BarrySearch
-
Cal. 97, and Perry v. AmesSearch
-
of the probate court, in cases of partition, could not be made concurrent with that of the district courts. In Perry v. AmesSearch
-
specified cases at law. But the fullest discussion as to the general question is to be found in Courtwright v. BearSearch
-
It referred to Perry v. AmesSearch
-
jurisdiction, and pronounced that doctrine to be correct. It further said that the dictum in Caulfield v. StevensSearch
-
must yield to the decision in Perry v. AmesSearch
-
jurisdiction of district and probate courts of actions in equity to abate nuisances was reaffirmed in Yolo County v. CitySearch
-
in the state court to which our attention is called which bears directly on the question of jurisdiction is Rosenberg v. FrankSearch
-
district courts is a question which need not be now decided. It is only necessary to accept the decision in Rosenberg v. FrankSearch
-
it could Page 128 U. S. 85 not be conferred upon probate courts, for, according to the doctrine of Rosenberg v. FrankSearch
-
real estate was unknown in the jurisprudence of this country, there would be ground under the doctrine of Rosenberg v. FrankSearch
-
among the heirs at law of the deceased. It is proper in this connection to say that there is nothing in Ferris v. HigleySearch
-
So far from the doctrines of that case militating against the decision of the Supreme Court of California in Rosenberg v. FrankSearch
-
it was said in Ferris v. HigleySearch
-
nor could it refuse to give it full effect unless the probate court was without jurisdiction of the case. Cooper v. ReynoldsSearch
-
by the record, will be presumed to be correct, and every intendment will be indulged in its support. Settlemier v. SullivanSearch
-
Pearson v. PearsonSearch
-
A suit for partition in a probate court is a special proceeding, Waterman v. LawrenceSearch
-
probate court was authorized by the statute. These views are in conformity with the recent decision in Carpenter v. SuperiorSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Robinson v. FairSearch
-
Zander v. CoeSearch
-
and Caulfield v. StevensSearch
-
In Zander v. CoeSearch
-
In People v. FowlerSearch
-
Courtwright v. BearSearch
-
Caulfield v. StevensSearch
-
and Perry v. AmesSearch
-
In Perry v. AmesSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial