Citation network
Henderson Bridge Co. Vs. Henderson City
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 08, 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
-
Henderson Bridge Co. v. HendersonSearch
-
City - 173 U.S. 592 (1899) U.S. Supreme Court Henderson Bridge Co. v. HendersonSearch
-
City, 173 U.S. 592 (1899) Henderson Bridge Company v. HendersonSearch
-
was the settled law of Kentucky, as shown by the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky in Louisville Bridge Co. v. LouisvilleSearch
-
boundary of the city was coextensive with its statutory boundary. Referring to the case of Louisville Bridge Co. v. LouisvilleSearch
-
as a part of a railroad -- consequently falls within the principle announced in Elizabethtown & Paducah Railroad v. ElizabethtownSearch
-
among the states, or is the taxation of any agency of the federal government. The case of Louisville Bridge Co. v. CitySearch
-
of the river to the Indiana shore, and that it was further settled by the court in the case of Louisville Bridge Co. v. LouisvilleSearch
-
in order of time, and as determining the boundary line of Kentucky, is the judgment of this Court in Handly's Lessee v. AnthonySearch
-
The question of boundary was again before this Court in Indiana v. KentuckySearch
-
Court, after referring to all the documentary evidence relating to the question and to the decision in Handly's Lessee v. AnthonySearch
-
The same view of the question of boundary was taken by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky in Fleming v. KenneySearch
-
Church v. ChambersSearch
-
McFarland v. McKnightSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
B. Mon. 500, 510, and McFall v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Metc. 394, 396, and by the General Court of Virginia in Commonwealth v. GarnerSearch
-
Railroad v. ChicagoSearch
-
under any system of government. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky, speaking by Chief Justice Marshall, in Cheaney v. HooserSearch
-
before the bridge company accepted its charter, upon which defendants rely in support of this contention are Cheaney v. HooserSearch
-
Covington v. SouthgateSearch
-
Marshall v. DonovanSearch
-
Bush, 681, 692, and Courtney v. LouisvilleSearch
-
In McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
Bridge Co. v. KentuckySearch
-
Henderson Bridge Co. v. HendersonSearch
-
Railway v. BoardSearch
-
of Public Works, 172 U. S. 32 . In Thomson v. PacificSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Henderson Bridge Co. v. HendersonSearch
-
Henderson Bridge Company v. HendersonSearch
-
Louisville Bridge Co. v. LouisvilleSearch
-
of Louisville Bridge Co. v. LouisvilleSearch
-
Elizabethtown & Paducah Railroad v. ElizabethtownSearch
-
of Louisville Bridge Co. v. CitySearch
-
Fleming v. KenneySearch
-
and McFall v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Commonwealth v. GarnerSearch
-
Cheaney v. HooserSearch
-
and Courtney v. LouisvilleSearch
-
In Thomson v. PacificSearch
-
Indiana v. KentuckySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial