Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Amy Vs. Watertown

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 08, 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

39 entries 5 linked 34 unlinked
Show
  1. Alexandria Vs. Fairfax US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1877
  2. Settlemier Vs. Sullivan US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1878
  3. Broughton Vs. Pensacola US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1876
  4. Kibbe Vs. Benson US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1873
  5. Burgess Vs. Seligman US Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1883
  6. U.S. 301 (1889) U.S. Supreme Court Amy v. Watertown
    Search
  7. U.S. 301 (1889) Amy v. Watertown
    Search
  8. be made upon some other substituted officer, and this Court concurs with that court in this construction. Broughton v. Pensacola
    Search
  9. U. S. 266 , and Mobile v. Watson
    Search
  10. and the consent of the court, it was then heard, together with a similar motion in the case of Worts and others v. The
    Search
  11. common law prevailed or the local law provided for the case, and prevented a vacancy. Such were the cases of Badger v. Bolles
    Search
  12. Edwards v. United
    Search
  13. Salamanca v. Wilson
    Search
  14. U. S. 627 . In Badger v. Bolles
    Search
  15. state the officers elected were to hold their offices until their successors were elected and qualified. In Edwards v. United
    Search
  16. the proper authority accepts it or does something tantamount thereto such as appointing a successor. In Salamanca v. Wilson
    Search
  17. provisions of the statute law are decisive, and preclude the operation of any such rule as was recognized in Badger v. Bolles
    Search
  18. and Edwards v. United
    Search
  19. be followed, and the rule is especially Page 130 U. S. 317 exacting in reference to corporations. Kibbe v. Benson
    Search
  20. Evans v. Dublin
    Search
  21. Walton v. Universal
    Search
  22. Brydolf v. Wolf
    Search
  23. Hoen v. Atlantic
    Search
  24. Lehigh Valley Ins. Co. v. Fuller
    Search
  25. Penn.St. 398. The courts of Wisconsin strictly adhere to this rule. Congar v. Railroad
    Search
  26. City of Watertown v. Robinson
    Search
  27. we always feel strongly disposed to give great weight to the decisions of the highest tribunal of the state. Burgess v. Seligman
    Search
  28. entered into with them by private parties cannot deprive the State of this paramount authority. See Meriwether v. Garrett
    Search
  29. U. S. 472 . The cases of Broughton v. Pensacola
    Search
  30. U.S. Supreme Court Amy v. Watertown
    Search
  31. and Mobile v. Watson
    Search
  32. of Badger v. Bolles
    Search
  33. In Badger v. Bolles
    Search
  34. In Edwards v. United
    Search
  35. In Salamanca v. Wilson
    Search
  36. Badger v. Bolles
    Search
  37. Congar v. Railroad
    Search
  38. See Meriwether v. Garrett
    Search
  39. of Broughton v. Pensacola
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial