Citation network
Dooley Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 27, 1901
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
-
Dooley v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 182 U.S. 222 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Dooley v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 182 U.S. 222 (1901) Dooley v. UnitedSearch
-
has no jurisdiction in actions for tort. In support of the first proposition we are cited to the case of Nichols v. UnitedSearch
-
be accepted with material qualifications. By the Customs Administrative Act of 1890, as we have just held in De Lima v. BidwellSearch
-
was a remedy by action against the collector expressly provided by statute, that remedy was exclusive. In De Lima v. BidwellSearch
-
apparently limited to claims for damages, liquidated or unliquidated. The question was first considered in Langford v. UnitedSearch
-
Page 182 U. S. 227 The case was rested largely upon that of Gibbons v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of Claims act. The Act of March 3, 1887 (the Tucker Act), was first considered by this Court in United States v. JonesSearch
-
of Claims jurisdiction in equity to compel the issue and entry of a patent for public land, following United States v. AlireSearch
-
Wall. 573, and Bonner v. UnitedSearch
-
no such difference in language as to justify an equitable jurisdiction to compel the issue of a patent. In Hill v. UnitedSearch
-
sounding in tort. In Schillinger v. UnitedSearch
-
jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, under the Tucker Act, has been repeatedly sustained. Thus, in United States v. KaufmanSearch
-
was distinguished upon the ground that the statute there had provided a special remedy. So too, in United States v. RealSearch
-
have jurisdiction of a suit to recover back certain taxes and penalties assessed upon a savings bank. In Campbell v. UnitedSearch
-
to the importer the amount he had paid to the government. There was here no question of tort. In United States v. GreatSearch
-
Manufacturing Co., 112 U. S. 645 , it was held, following the observation of Mr. Justice Miller in Langford v. UnitedSearch
-
obligation to compensate the owner, which might be enforced by suit in the Court of Claims. So, too, in Hollister v. BenedictSearch
-
the use of a patented invention, if the right of the patentee were acknowledged. To the same effect are United States v. PalmerSearch
-
U. S. 262 , and United States v. BerdanSearch
-
Fire-Arms Co., 156 U. S. 552 . In Medbury v. UnitedSearch
-
to the payment, forfeited by act of Congress for nonconstruction of the road. Page 182 U. S. 230 In Swift v. UnitedSearch
-
Mosby v. UnitedSearch
-
December 10, 1898, it did not take effect upon individual rights until there was an exchange of ratifications. Haver v. YakerSearch
-
In New Orleans v. SteamshipSearch
-
See also Thirty Hogsheads of Sugar v. BoyleSearch
-
American Ins. Co. v. CanterSearch
-
this point, since the authority to exact similar duties was fully considered and affirmed by this Court in Cross v. HarrisonSearch
-
of the treaty appear to have been known as soon as they were exchanged. The Court further held in Cross v. HarrisonSearch
-
point, that case differs from the one under consideration only in the particular that the duties were levied in Cross v. HarrisonSearch
-
United States, Porto Rico remained a foreign country within the revenue laws, is established by the case of Fleming v. PageSearch
-
the island to the United States. Porto Rico then ceased to be a foreign country, and, as we have just held in De Lima v. BidwellSearch
-
continued in the military commander after the ratification of the treaty and until further action by Congress. Cross v. HarrisonSearch
-
other words, they would not extend beyond the necessities of the case. Thus, in the case of The Admittance, Jecker v. MontgomerySearch
-
to validate their action. The Grapeshot, 9 Wall. 129, 76 U. S. 133 . So, too, in Mitchell v. HarmonySearch
-
directing the seizure was liable to an action for the value of the property taken. To the same effect is Mostyn v. FabrigasSearch
-
Cowp. 180. In Raymond v. ThomasSearch
-
to have been unlawfully imposed, upon the doctrine announced in the Page 182 U. S. 237 case of De Lima v. BidwellSearch
-
relation to the extension of the sovereignty of the United States over territory were cited to the Court, in Fleming v. PageSearch
-
the revenue laws of the United States were applicable, and the Court decided adversely to such contention. Fleming v. PageSearch
-
subject can only be upheld by disregarding the opinion of the Court expressed by Mr. Chief Justice Taney in Fleming v. PageSearch
-
that case as mere dicta. 6. The result also cannot be supported without a misconception of the case of Cross v. HarrisonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial