Citation network
Manchester Vs. Massachusetts
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 16, 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
-
U.S. 240 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court Manchester v. MassachusettsSearch
-
U.S. 240 (1891) Manchester v. MassachusettsSearch
-
No. 89, 45th Congress, 2d session, H.R., pp. 120, 121, 166. On this branch of the subject, the case of Queen v. KeynSearch
-
fisheries in the open sea or in bays or arms of the sea. In all the cases cited in the opinions delivered in Queen v. KeynSearch
-
league from the shore, belongs to the nation on whose coast the fisheries are prosecuted. In Direct U.S. Cable Co. v. Anglo-AmericanSearch
-
Neill v. DukeSearch
-
Gammell v. CommissionersSearch
-
Mowat v. McFeeSearch
-
Queen v. CubittSearch
-
that the statute of Massachusetts is repugnant to that Constitution and to the laws of the United States. In Dunham v. LamphereSearch
-
the decisions of this Court which related to that subject did not appear to be in conflict with the decision in Dunham v. LamphereSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
is within such jurisdiction, and that therefore the courts of Massachusetts have no jurisdiction over it. In McCready v. VirginiaSearch
-
In Smith v. MarylandSearch
-
by the state or the sovereign power which governed its territory before the declaration of independence. Pollard v. HaganSearch
-
Den v. TheSearch
-
But we consider it to have been settled by this Court in United States v. BevansSearch
-
at the point where Page 139 U. S. 262 Anne Arundel County bounds upon it, it is wholly in that state. Haney v. ComptonSearch
-
Corfield v. CoryellSearch
-
Weston v. SampsonSearch
-
Mahler v. NorwichSearch
-
United States v. SmileySearch
-
Sawyer 640. In the case of Stockton v. BaltimoreSearch
-
jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is wholly derived from the statutes of the United States. Butler v. BostonSearch
-
Steamboat Co. v. ChaseSearch
-
Insurance Co. v. DunhamSearch
-
Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 137 U. S. 202 , 137 U. S. 211 . In each of the cases of United States v. BevansSearch
-
Wheat. 336, and of Commonwealth v. PetersSearch
-
The test applied in Commonwealth v. PetersSearch
-
and was therefore within the body of a county. In United States v. BevansSearch
-
was committed is within the general jurisdiction of Massachusetts, then according to the principles declared in Smith v. MarylandSearch
-
over this territory has been granted to the United States, this control remains with the state. In United States v. BevansSearch
-
waters of the United States, and the jurisdiction of Massachusetts over them is necessarily limited, Commonwealth v. KingSearch
-
rivers, harbors, and ports of the United States, but leaves the regulation of that matter to the states, Cooley v. BoardSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Manchester v. MassachusettsSearch
-
of Queen v. KeynSearch
-
Queen v. KeynSearch
-
In Direct U.S. Cable Co. v. Anglo-AmericanSearch
-
of the United States. In Dunham v. LamphereSearch
-
Dunham v. LamphereSearch
-
In McCready v. VirginiaSearch
-
Pollard v. HaganSearch
-
Haney v. ComptonSearch
-
of Stockton v. BaltimoreSearch
-
of the United States. Butler v. BostonSearch
-
of United States v. BevansSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial