Citation network
Capital Traction Co. Vs. Hof
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 11, 1899
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 (1899) U.S. Supreme Court Capital Traction Co. v. HofSearch
-
U.S. 1 (1899) Capital Traction Co. v. HofSearch
-
of either party in the appellate court. This Court therefore has jurisdiction of the writ of error. Railroad Co. v. HopkinsSearch
-
Parsons v. DistrictSearch
-
it may think fit so long as it does not contravene any provision of the Constitution of the United States. Kendall v. UnitedSearch
-
Mattingly v. DistrictSearch
-
Gibbons v. DistrictSearch
-
right of trial by jury, whether in civil or in criminal cases, are applicable to the District of Columbia. Webster v. ReidSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
in this respect clearly stated and defined, by judicial decisions. In United States v. WonsonSearch
-
Gallison 14, 20. In Parsons v. BedfordSearch
-
Id., 28 U. S. 446 -448. This last statement has been often reaffirmed by this Court. Barreda v. SilsbeeSearch
-
Justices v. MurraySearch
-
Miller v. LifeSearch
-
Insurance Co. v. ComstockSearch
-
Insurance Co. v. FolsomSearch
-
Railroad Co. v. FraloffSearch
-
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. ChicagoSearch
-
formed the Constitution, has always been considered as a contemporaneous exposition of the highest authority. Cohens v. VirginiaSearch
-
Parsons v. BedfordSearch
-
Bors v. PrestonSearch
-
Wisconsin v. PelicanSearch
-
and by the Supreme Court of New York and by this Court in cases arising under the acts of 1863 and 1866. Wetherbee v. JohnsonSearch
-
Patrie v. MurraySearch
-
Wall. 22. In Justices v. MurraySearch
-
violation of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and for that reason null and void. Patrie v. MurraySearch
-
opinion upon this point, granted a writ of mandamus to the clerk of the state court. Page 174 U. S. 12 Murray v. PatrieSearch
-
had received the most deliberate consideration of the Court, quoting the statements of Mr. Justice Story in Parsons v. BedfordSearch
-
Wall. 76 U. S. 277 -279. In Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. CitySearch
-
in a court of justice is as well settled as any legal proposition can be. . . . We agree with Grimke, J., in Willyard v. HamiltonSearch
-
Lamb v. LaneSearch
-
United States v. BagsSearch
-
Railroad v. PutnamSearch
-
United States v. PhiladelphiaSearch
-
Reading Railroad (1887), 123 U. S. 113 , 123 U. S. 114 . And see Sparf v. UnitedSearch
-
Wanser v. AtkinsonSearch
-
them by Congress to try and determine cases, criminal or civil, are doubtless in some sense judicial officers. Wise v. WithersSearch
-
Weikel v. CateSearch
-
and to abide the judgment of the appellate court. The question considered and decided by this Court in Callan v. WilsonSearch
-
by allowing such a trial on appeal from a justice of the peace or from an inferior court were criminal cases. Greene v. BriggsSearch
-
Saco v. WentworthSearch
-
Maryland, in 1799, held that this statute did not infringe the constitutional right of trial by jury. Bank of Columbia v. RossSearch
-
Bank v. OkelySearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Capital Traction Co. v. HofSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial