Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Marshall Vs. Holmes

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 09, 1891

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

42 entries 8 linked 34 unlinked
Show
  1. Hendrickson Vs. Hinckley US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1854
  2. Crim Vs. Handley US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1876
  3. Metcalf Vs. Williams US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1881
  4. Embry Vs. Palmer US Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1883
  5. Barrow Vs. Hunton US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1878
    Distinguished
  6. Nougue Vs. Clapp US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1879
    Distinguished
  7. United States Vs. Throckmorton US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1878
  8. Gaines Vs. Fuentes US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1875
  9. U.S. 589 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court Marshall v. Holmes
    Search
  10. U.S. 589 (1891) Marshall v. Holmes
    Search
  11. whether, under the allegations and proof, a case is made which entitles the plaintiff to the relief asked. Barrow v. Hunton
    Search
  12. U. S. 640 , and Arrowsmith v. Gleason
    Search
  13. U. S. 86 , distinguished from Nougue v. Clapp
    Search
  14. U. S. 551 , and Graham v. Boston
    Search
  15. in that court, notwithstanding the order of the state court refusing to recognize the right of removal. Steamship Co. v. Tugman
    Search
  16. St. Paul & Chicago Railway v. McLean
    Search
  17. Stone v. South
    Search
  18. Crehore v. Ohio
    Search
  19. Marine Ins. Co. v. Hodgson
    Search
  20. Floyd v. Jayne
    Search
  21. Johns.Ch. 479, 482. See also United States v. Throckmorton
    Search
  22. A leading case upon this subject is Barrow v. Hunton
    Search
  23. then they constitute an original and independent proceeding, and according to the doctrine laid down in Gaines v. Fuentes
    Search
  24. only, the case was held not to be cognizable in the courts of the United States. The rules laid down in Barrow v. Hunton
    Search
  25. were applied in Johnson v. Waters
    Search
  26. U. S. 640 , 111 U. S. 667 , and Arrowsmith v. Gleason
    Search
  27. U. S. 86 , 129 U. S. 101 . In Johnson v. Waters
    Search
  28. In Arrowsmith v. Gleason
    Search
  29. take from him the benefit of judgments obtained by fraud. It was contended at the bar that the cases of Nougue v. Clapp
    Search
  30. proceed upon any ground inconsistent with the principles announced in the cases above cited. It is true that in Nougue v. Clapp
    Search
  31. purchaser at the sale, was a party. Here, the resemblance between that case and the one before us ends, for in Nougue v. Clapp
    Search
  32. he was a party. This requirement of diligence is, as it ought to be, enforced with strictness. The case of Graham v. Boston
    Search
  33. Hartford & Erie Railroad does not differ in principle from Nougue v. Clapp
    Search
  34. U.S. Supreme Court Marshall v. Holmes
    Search
  35. and Arrowsmith v. Gleason
    Search
  36. and Graham v. Boston
    Search
  37. Steamship Co. v. Tugman
    Search
  38. In Johnson v. Waters
    Search
  39. of Nougue v. Clapp
    Search
  40. of Graham v. Boston
    Search
  41. Johnson v. Waters
    Search
  42. Knox County v. Harshman
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial