Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Dower Vs. Richards

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 04, 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

62 entries 15 linked 47 unlinked
Show
  1. Cohens Vs. Virginia US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1821
    Distinguished
  2. Hemmenway Vs. Fisher US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1857
  3. Wiscart Vs. Dauchy US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1796
    Distinguished
  4. Lanfear Vs. Hunley US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1866
  5. Generes Vs. Campbell US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1872
  6. Missouri Vs. Andriano US Supreme Court · Mar 02, 1891
  7. Eustis Vs. Bolles US Supreme Court · Nov 20, 1893
  8. California Powder Works Vs. Davis US Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1894
  9. Mackay Vs. Dillon US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1846
    Distinguished
  10. Deffeback Vs. Hawke US Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1885
  11. Parks Vs. Turner US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1851
  12. New Orleans Waterworks Co. Vs. Louisiana US Supreme Court · May 06, 1902
  13. Almonester Vs. Kenton US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1850
    Relied / Followed
  14. Moreland Vs. Page US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1857
  15. Maguire Vs. Tyler US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1869
  16. U.S. 658 (1894) U.S. Supreme Court Dower v. Richards
    Search
  17. U.S. 658 (1894) Dower v. Richards
    Search
  18. for such purposes, does not defeat or impair the title of persons claiming under the town site patent. Deffeback v. Hawke
    Search
  19. Davis v. Weibbold
    Search
  20. always been distinguished from an appeal, which, unless expressly restricted, brings up both law and fact. Wiscart v. Dauchy
    Search
  21. Hyde v. Booraem
    Search
  22. and had therefore ordered the case to be reargued. United States v. King
    Search
  23. How. 48 U. S. 865 . See also Parks v. Turner
    Search
  24. Arthur v. Hart
    Search
  25. Jeffries v. Mutual
    Search
  26. the judgments or decrees at law or in equity of the highest court of a state has been by writ of error. Cohens v. Virginia
    Search
  27. of the state court is against a right claimed under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Montgomery v. Hernandez
    Search
  28. ground of law not involving any federal question, this Court has no jurisdiction. New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. Louisiana
    Search
  29. to the legal competency of evidence relied on to prove a title under an act of Congress. Again, in Almonester v. Kenton
    Search
  30. had Page 151 U. S. 668 gone further and had given a construction to an act of Congress. So, in Moreland v. Page
    Search
  31. U. S. 20 How. 522, 61 U. S. 523 . In Lytle v. Arkansas
    Search
  32. the scope of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court is evident from the cases there cited. See also Maguire v. Tyler
    Search
  33. of later decisions, some of them in cases very like the one now before us. Page 151 U. S. 669 In Lewis v. Campau
    Search
  34. reviewable, although, if the value of the land had been admitted, a federal question would have been presented. Hall v. Jordon
    Search
  35. Wall. 393. In Boggs v. Mining
    Search
  36. U. S. 3 Wall. 304, 70 U. S. 310 . In Carpenter v. Williams
    Search
  37. U. S. 9 Wall. 785, 76 U. S. 786 . In Crary v. Devlin
    Search
  38. plaintiff because no such violation was proved, and this Court dismissed the writ of error upon the authority of Boggs v. Mining
    Search
  39. Lawyers C. P. Co's Rep. 510, 511. In Republican River Bridge Co. v. Kansas
    Search
  40. And Boggs v. Mining
    Search
  41. Co. and Crary v. Devlin
    Search
  42. in admiralty cases, or in cases tried according to the law of Louisiana, need not now be considered. In Martin v. Marks
    Search
  43. U. S. 97 U.S. 345, 97 U. S. 348 . In Kenney v. Effinger
    Search
  44. U.S. 577. Page 151 U. S. 672 . In Quimby v. Boyd
    Search
  45. U. S. 128 U.S. 488-489. In California Powder Works v. Davis
    Search
  46. U.S. Supreme Court Dower v. Richards
    Search
  47. United States v. King
    Search
  48. of the United States. Montgomery v. Hernandez
    Search
  49. In Lytle v. Arkansas
    Search
  50. In Lewis v. Campau
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial