Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Cameron Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 27, 1893

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

44 entries 12 linked 32 unlinked
Show
  1. Cannon Vs. Pratt US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1878
  2. NeslIn Vs. Wells US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1881
  3. Gray Vs. Howe US Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1882
  4. Meehan Vs. Forsyth US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1860
  5. Hall Vs. Law US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1880
  6. Deffeback Vs. Hawke US Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1885
  7. United States Vs. Mclaughlin US Supreme Court · May 14, 1888
    Distinguished
  8. Stringfellow Vs. Cain US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1878
  9. Hecht Vs. Boughton US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1881
  10. Pillow Vs. Roberts US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1851
    Relied / Followed
  11. United States Vs. Armijo US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1866
  12. Newhall Vs. Sanger US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1875
  13. Cameron v. United
    Search
  14. States - 148 U.S. 301 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Cameron v. United
    Search
  15. States, 148 U.S. 301 (1893) Cameron v. United
    Search
  16. summary remedies provided for the enforcement of mechanics' liens, considered by this Court in Idaho & Oregon Land Co. v. Bradbury
    Search
  17. U. S. 509 , or the special proceedings under the territorial statutes of Utah discussed in Stringfellow v. Cain
    Search
  18. U. S. 12 , and in Ely v. New
    Search
  19. Arizona. In these cases, the validity of special statutory proceedings of this description was sustained, and in Hecht v. Boughton
    Search
  20. foregoing facts, we think it clear that defendant established a color of title to the lands in question. In Wright v. Mattison
    Search
  21. Gregg v. Sayre
    Search
  22. as to the grantor, but which the grantee had accepted in good faith, was held to have the same effect. In Bryan v. Forsythe
    Search
  23. title was such as to sustain an action of ejectment even before a patent was issued. To the same effect are Pillow v. Roberts
    Search
  24. not fall within the class of concessions by specific boundaries, as these grants are distinguished in United States v. McLaughlin
    Search
  25. was designated, and would have no authority to maintain a fence around any part of the tract. In the case of Fremont v. United
    Search
  26. U. S. 428 . See also United States v. Armijo
    Search
  27. Higueras v. United
    Search
  28. Alviso v. United
    Search
  29. Hornsby v. United
    Search
  30. acts of Congress respecting the disposition of public lands. As early as 1839 it was held by this Court in Wilcox v. Jackson
    Search
  31. Page 148 U. S. 310 Railway v. United
    Search
  32. S. 733 , the doctrine of the former case was reaffirmed and held to apply to Indian reservations. And in Newhall v. Sanger
    Search
  33. act in question expressly excluded from preemption and sale all lands covered by any foreign grant or title. In Doolan v. Carr
    Search
  34. U.S. Supreme Court Cameron v. United
    Search
  35. Idaho & Oregon Land Co. v. Bradbury
    Search
  36. Ely v. New
    Search
  37. In Wright v. Mattison
    Search
  38. Gregg v. Sayre
    Search
  39. In Bryan v. Forsythe
    Search
  40. of Fremont v. United
    Search
  41. Wilcox v. Jackson
    Search
  42. Railway v. United
    Search
  43. In Doolan v. Carr
    Search
  44. Gregg v. Forsyth
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial