Citation network
Shively Vs. Bowlby
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 05, 1894
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. 1 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
U.S. 1 (1894) Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
exercised, without objection or doubt, in similar cases of writs of error to the state courts. Railroad Co. v. SchurmeierSearch
-
Knight v. UnitedSearch
-
The Rebeckah, 1 C.Rob. 227, 230. Many judgments of this Court are to the same effect. Charles River Bridge v. WarrenSearch
-
Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman'sSearch
-
Car Co., 139 U. S. 24 , 139 U. S. 49 . In Yesler v. WashingtonSearch
-
to the consideration of its merits. The briefs submitted to the court in the case at bar, as well as in Yesler v. CommissionersSearch
-
above cited, and in Prosser v. NorthernSearch
-
The King v. SmithSearch
-
Attorney General v. ParmeterSearch
-
Attorney General v. ChambersSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Malcomson v. O'DeaSearch
-
Attorney General v. EmersonSearch
-
or in a subject, is held subject to the public right, jus publicum, of navigation and fishing. Attorney General v. ParmeterSearch
-
Attorney General v. JohnsonSearch
-
Gann v. FreeSearch
-
of Whitstable, 11 H.L.Cas. 192. The same law has been declared by the House of Lords to prevail in Scotland. Smith v. StairSearch
-
Lord Advocate v. HamiltonSearch
-
Somerset v. FogwellSearch
-
Smith v. StairSearch
-
Blundell v. CatteralSearch
-
Attorney General v. RichardsSearch
-
Attorney General v. TerrySearch
-
Weber v. HarborSearch
-
nor a right to build thereon, but a right of access only, analogous to that of an abutter upon a highway. Buccleuch v. MetropolitanSearch
-
Lyon v. Fishmongers'Search
-
North Shore Railway v. PionSearch
-
subject to the rights surrendered to the national government by the Constitution of the United States. Johnson v. McIntoshSearch
-
Commonwealth v. RoxburySearch
-
Stevens v. PatersonSearch
-
People v. NewSearch
-
The leading case in this Court as to the title and dominion of tidewaters and of the lands under them is Martin v. WaddellSearch
-
This Court, following, though not resting wholly upon, the decision of the Supreme Court of New Jersey in Arnold v. MundySearch
-
of Mr. Justice Thompson in that case, and to the unanimous judgment of the Court in the subsequent case of Den v. JerseySearch
-
Co., (1853) 15 How. 426. In Martin v. WaddellSearch
-
trust and dispose of it to the private and exclusive use of individuals. 16 Pet. 41 U. S. 418 -434. In Den v. JerseySearch
-
they were entitled to the exclusive possession, and that nothing but the right of fishery was decided in Martin v. WaddellSearch
-
but the Court, again speaking by Chief Justice Taney, held that the decision in Martin v. WaddellSearch
-
Boston v. LecrawSearch
-
Richardson v. BostonSearch
-
Commonwealth v. AlgerSearch
-
has been held to include the land below high water mark, as far as the grantor owns. Boston v. RichardsonSearch
-
before the ordinance, of lands bounded by tidewater did not include any land below high water mark. Commonwealth v. AlgerSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
Railroad Co. v. SchurmeierSearch
-
Charles River Bridge v. WarrenSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial