Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Cross Vs. Burke

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 14, 1892

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

26 entries 5 linked 21 unlinked
Show
  1. Schwab Vs. Berggren US Supreme Court · Feb 29, 1892
  2. United States Vs. Sanges US Supreme Court · Apr 04, 1892
  3. Kurtz Vs. Moffitt US Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1885
  4. Wales Vs. Whitney US Supreme Court · May 04, 1885
  5. Farnsworth Vs. Montana US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1889
  6. U.S. 82 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Cross v. Burke
    Search
  7. U.S. 82 (1892) Cross v. Burke
    Search
  8. District of Columbia on habeas corpus. The statutes on this subject reviewed. Page 146 U. S. 83 Wales v. Whitney
    Search
  9. of June, 1892, by order entered by the court in general term. That writ of error was dismissed May 16, 1892, Cross v. United
    Search
  10. district that the time and place of execution are not parts of a sentence of death unless made so by statute. Holden v. Minnesota
    Search
  11. Cross v. United
    Search
  12. be taken in all the cases described in section 763. It was to this act that Mr. Justice Miller referred in Wales v. Whitney
    Search
  13. But the question of jurisdiction does not appear to have been contested in Wales v. Whitney
    Search
  14. and where this is so, the Court does not consider itself bound by the view expressed. United States v. Sanges
    Search
  15. United States v. More
    Search
  16. legislation touching our jurisdiction over circuit courts of the United States is quite inadmissible, Kendall v. United
    Search
  17. States, 12 Pet. 524, and that no reference was made in Wales v. Whitney
    Search
  18. The act does not apply in either section to any criminal case, Farnsworth v. Montana
    Search
  19. court. It is well settled that a proceeding in habeas corpus is a civil, and not a criminal, proceeding. Farnsworth v. Montana
    Search
  20. the matter in dispute must be money or some right the value of which in money can be calculated and ascertained, Kurtz v. Moffitt
    Search
  21. this Court in cases like that at bar, but only in the classes mentioned in the fifth section of that act. Lau Ow Bew v. United
    Search
  22. Horner v. United
    Search
  23. U.S. Supreme Court Cross v. Burke
    Search
  24. Holden v. Minnesota
    Search
  25. Kendall v. United
    Search
  26. Lau Ow Bew v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial