Citation network
Scranton Vs. Wheeler
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 12, 1900
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 141 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Scranton v. WheelerSearch
-
U.S. 141 (1900) Scranton v. WheelerSearch
-
Willson v. MarshSearch
-
only be taken for public uses upon just compensation. This is the doctrine of the case of Monongahela Navigation Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
for trial. The parties concurred in the opinion that the case was not removable from the state court -- Tennessee v. UnionSearch
-
Planters' Bank, 152 U. S. 454 , and Chappell v. WaterworthSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
This point has been settled by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States rendered May 10, 1897. Tindal v. WesleySearch
-
U. S. 204 . In that case, the authorities upon this point are reviewed at length, including the case of Stanley v. SchwalbySearch
-
is not private property in the sense of the Fifth Amendment to the federal Constitution. As was declared in Gilman v. PhiladelphiaSearch
-
against the plaintiff. This subject has been examined by the court in numerous cases, the most recent one being Tindal v. WesleySearch
-
plaintiff has been denied the protection secured by the constitutional provision in question. In Pumpelly v. GreenSearch
-
That case was relied upon in Transportation Co. v. ChicagoSearch
-
Page 179 U. S. 155 In Monongahela Navigation Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
But the case most analogous to the present one is that of Gibson v. UnitedSearch
-
citing South Carolina v. GeorgiaSearch
-
It is said that he is so entitled in virtue of the decision in Yates v. MilwaukeeSearch
-
This, as this Court said in Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
more to be said. But the opinion of the Court went further, and after observing, upon the authority of Dutton v. StrongSearch
-
Black 25, and Railroad Co. v. SchurmeirSearch
-
The decision in Yates v. MilwaukeeSearch
-
Wheat. 1, 22 U. S. 196 -197. In Gilman v. PhiladelphiaSearch
-
In South Carolina v. GeorgiaSearch
-
In Mobile County v. KimballSearch
-
In Stockton v. BaltimoreSearch
-
in New York, it may be well here to refer to some of the rulings of the highest court of that state. In Rumsey v. NewSearch
-
England Railroad Co., 133 N.Y. 79, 85, 89, the Court of Appeals of New York, referring to the prior case of Gould v. HudsonSearch
-
But in a later case in New York relating to this subject -- Sage v. TheSearch
-
Mayor, 154 N.Y. 61, 69 -- the Court of Appeals, after observing that the court in Rumsey v. NewSearch
-
Webber v. PereSearch
-
that state that the rights of the riparian owner are subject to the public easement or servitude of navigation. Lorman v. BensonSearch
-
Ryan v. BrownSearch
-
and of the waters flowing over them as may be consistent with or demanded by the public right of navigation. In Lorman v. BensonSearch
-
control of each state, subject only to the rights vested by the Constitution of the United States. In Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
The reasoning and conclusions of this case were followed and applied in the subsequent cases of Mann v. TacomaSearch
-
Paul Water Commissioners, 168 U. S. 349 , and Morris v. UnitedSearch
-
never been held in Michigan that that doctrine applied to the case of titles derived from the United States. Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
and Mann v. TacomaSearch
-
that 'the title of the riparian owner extends to the middle line of the lake or stream of the inland waters.' Webber v. PereSearch
-
including things real and personal, easements, franchises, and other incorporeal hereditaments. Boston R. Co. v. SalemSearch
-
Soulard v. UnitedSearch
-
public, he is entitled to compensation. This distinction has always been recognized by the English courts. Rose v. GrovesSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial