Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. Vs. Bradley

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 16, 1896

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

66 entries 9 linked 57 unlinked
Show
  1. Shelby Vs. Guy US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1826
  2. Leffingwell Vs. Warren US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1862
  3. Detroit Vs. Osborne US Supreme Court · May 19, 1890
  4. Thorington Vs. Montgomery US Supreme Court · Feb 06, 1893
  5. Pearson Vs. Yewdall US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1877
  6. Lent Vs. Tillson US Supreme Court · May 11, 1891
  7. Paulsen Vs. Portland US Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1893
  8. Loan Association Vs. Topeka US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1874
  9. Spencer Vs. Merchant US Supreme Court · Apr 02, 1888
  10. U.S. 112 (1896) U.S. Supreme Court Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley
    Search
  11. U.S. 112 (1896) Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley
    Search
  12. the statute and (2) as to whether, if so construed, it violates any provision of that constitution. Loan Association v. Topeka
    Search
  13. court of that state not to be in violation of its Constitution, this Court will not hold to the contrary. Davidson v. New
    Search
  14. Van Renesselaer v. Kearney
    Search
  15. Hagar v. Reclamation
    Search
  16. of general constitutional law. The contrary has not been held in this Court by the case of Loan Association v. Topeka
    Search
  17. amendment under discussion. None will be attempted here. It was stated by Mr. Justice Miller in Davidson v. New
    Search
  18. in the jurisdiction of this Court would result, and it would be a great misfortune in each case. Mobile County v. Kimball
    Search
  19. Missouri Pacific Railway v. Humes
    Search
  20. U. S. 512 , 115 U. S. 520 . We reiterate the statement made in Davidson v. New
    Search
  21. public use without just compensation, applies only to the federal government, as has many times been decided. Spies v. Illinois
    Search
  22. corporations, organized for the promotion of the prosperity and welfare of the people. Turlock Irrigation District v. Williams
    Search
  23. water under the same circumstances. This is sufficient. The case does not essentially differ from that of Hagar v. Reclamation
    Search
  24. regulations for the general advantage of those who are treated for this purpose as owners of a common property. Head v. Amoskeag
    Search
  25. on the assumption that the Supreme Court of California has thus construed the act in the Modesto Irrigation District v. Tregea
    Search
  26. to undertake any such review of a question of fact. The difference between this case and the case of Spencer v. Merchant
    Search
  27. subsequently be charged in his property has had a hearing, or an opportunity for one, provided by the statute. Kelley v. Pittsburg
    Search
  28. in such case. In speaking of a board of supervisors, Mr. Chief Justice Waite, in Spring Valley Waterworks Company v. Schottler
    Search
  29. legislative discretion. It is not constitutionally necessary in such cases to give a rehearing or an appeal. Missouri v. Lewis
    Search
  30. not pretended that such jurisdiction has been invoked or exercised here. As was said by Mr. Justice Miller in Davidson v. New
    Search
  31. To the same effect, Spencer v. Merchant
    Search
  32. decided these questions in the same way. This appears, among others, in the case of Modesto Irrigation District v. Tregea
    Search
  33. decisions with respect to the latter are authority as to the former, and we cite, as conclusive on this point, People v. Hagar
    Search
  34. In the case of People v. Hagar
    Search
  35. notification to those interested in the question, and gives them an opportunity to be heard before the board. Hagar v. Reclamation
    Search
  36. People v. Irrigation
    Search
  37. i.e. the amount of the tax which he is to pay. Paulsen v. Portland
    Search
  38. before his property can be taken. This, in substance, was determined by the decisions of this Court in Spencer v. Merchant
    Search
  39. U. S. 345 , 125 U. S. 356 , and Walston v. Nevin
    Search
  40. constitutional problem and far from a case of taking property without due process of law. In the case of Davidson v. New
    Search
  41. concerned -- i.e. it was not a constitutional question, and therefore was not reviewable here. In Walston v. Nevin
    Search
  42. body the discretion was committed of providing for payment of the improvement. We refer to the case of Cleveland v. Tripp
    Search
  43. U.S. Supreme Court Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley
    Search
  44. Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley
    Search
  45. Davidson v. New
    Search
  46. of Loan Association v. Topeka
    Search
  47. Mobile County v. Kimball
    Search
  48. Spies v. Illinois
    Search
  49. Turlock Irrigation District v. Williams
    Search
  50. of Hagar v. Reclamation
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial