Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Matthews

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 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

40 entries 5 linked 35 unlinked
Show
  1. Douglas Vs. Wallace US Supreme Court · Mar 02, 1896
  2. Daviess Vs. Fairbairn US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1845
  3. Cope Vs. Cope US Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1891
  4. Furman Vs. Nichol US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1868
  5. Red Rock Vs. Henry US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1883
  6. U.S. 381 (1899) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Matthews
    Search
  7. U.S. 381 (1899) United States v. Matthews
    Search
  8. considered at common law to be a species of quasi -extortion, and partaking of the character of a bribe. Bridge v. Cage
    Search
  9. Badow v. Salter
    Search
  10. Stotesbury v. Smith
    Search
  11. Hatch v. Mann
    Search
  12. Gillmore v. Lewis
    Search
  13. Stacy v. State
    Search
  14. Davis v. Burns
    Search
  15. Brown v. Godfrey
    Search
  16. Morrell v. Quarles
    Search
  17. Day v. Putnam
    Search
  18. Hayden v. Souger
    Search
  19. Ring v. Devlin
    Search
  20. Railway v. Grafton
    Search
  21. to offer the reward is too obvious to require anything but statement. Nor is there anything in the case of Pool v. Boston
    Search
  22. law of Massachusetts, doubtless had authority to offer rewards for the detection and conviction of criminals. Freeman v. Boston
    Search
  23. Crawshaw v. Roxbury
    Search
  24. of the laws against smuggling. As said by Mr. Justice Grier, delivering the opinion of the Court in Dorsheimer v. United
    Search
  25. no pay directly from the government, but only such compensation as his superior may choose to allow him. Douglas v. Wallace
    Search
  26. prior law is only repealed to the extent of such repugnancy. This was the declared doctrine of this Court in Wood v. United
    Search
  27. in McCool v. Smith
    Search
  28. in Daviess v. Fairbairn
    Search
  29. in Cope v. Cope
    Search
  30. in Furman v. Nichol
    Search
  31. in United States v. Sixty-Seven
    Search
  32. Packages, 17 How. 85, and in Red Rock v. Henry
    Search
  33. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Matthews
    Search
  34. Bridge v. Cage
    Search
  35. of Pool v. Boston
    Search
  36. Freeman v. Boston
    Search
  37. Dorsheimer v. United
    Search
  38. Wood v. United
    Search
  39. McCool v. Smith
    Search
  40. United States v. Sixty-Seven
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial