Citation network
Scotland County Vs. Hill
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 04, 1889
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. 107 (1889) U.S. Supreme Court Scotland County v. HillSearch
-
U.S. 107 (1889) Scotland County v. HillSearch
-
the previous sanction of two-thirds of the qualified voters at a regular or special election for that purpose. Wagner v. MeetySearch
-
Mo. 150. That ruling, the court said, was in harmony with its previous decision in State v. GarroutteSearch
-
in payment of its subscription, was directly presented and determined, upon full consideration, in County of Scotland v. ThomasSearch
-
bonds issued in payment were valid obligations. It was also distinctly ruled, in accordance with County of Callaway v. FosterSearch
-
granted before that constitution went into operation. The doctrines of that case were reaffirmed in County of Henry v. NicolaySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and County of Ralls v. DouglassSearch
-
bonds issued under legislative authority granted before the adoption of the Constitution of 1865. See also Menasha v. HazardSearch
-
Green County v. ConnersSearch
-
U. S. 104 , and Livingston County v. PortsmouthSearch
-
Bank, 128 U. S. 102 . In County of Ralls v. DouglassSearch
-
attention was called to State v. GarroutteSearch
-
Mo. 443, and State v. CountySearch
-
from those announced by this Court in the cases above cited, as those previously announced by the state court in State v. MaconSearch
-
Railroad Co. v. AldermanSearch
-
Smith v. ClarkSearch
-
County, 54 Mo. 58, 70, and State v. CountySearch
-
a previous vote of the people was intended Page 132 U. S. 113 (to use the language of County of Ralls v. DouglassSearch
-
was improper, and for that reason the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. Scotland County v. HillSearch
-
Page 132 U. S. 114 with notice of its pendency, or of the decree which was rendered. The case of County of Warren v. MarcySearch
-
of no importance whether the decision in the Wagner suit was in conflict with that of this Court in Scotland County v. ThomasSearch
-
upon, William Hill the plaintiff, had actual knowledge of the pendency of or judgment in case of Levi J. Wagner et al. v. CharlesSearch
-
The principles of law by which this question must be determined are well settled. In Commissioners of Douglas County v. BollesSearch
-
In Cromwell v. CountySearch
-
So, in Roberts v. LaneSearch
-
Montclair v. RamsdellSearch
-
Porter v. PittsburgSearch
-
Mornyer v. CooperSearch
-
Kost v. BenderSearch
-
Act of June 20, 1879, Laws of 1879, c. 538, p. 598. In Bank of Louisville v. YoungSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Scotland County v. HillSearch
-
Wagner v. MeetySearch
-
State v. GarroutteSearch
-
and Livingston County v. PortsmouthSearch
-
In County of Ralls v. DouglassSearch
-
and State v. CountySearch
-
State v. MaconSearch
-
of County of Ralls v. DouglassSearch
-
of County of Warren v. MarcySearch
-
Scotland County v. ThomasSearch
-
In Commissioners of Douglas County v. BollesSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial