Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Missouri Vs. Illinois and Sanitary District of Chicago

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 28, 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

59 entries 1 linked 58 unlinked
Show
  1. South Carolina Vs. Georgia US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1876
  2. Missouri v. Illinois
    Search
  3. Sanitary District of Chicago - 180 U.S. 208 (1901) U.S. Supreme Court Missouri v. Illinois
    Search
  4. Sanitary District of Chicago, 180 U.S. 208 (1901) Missouri v. Illinois
    Search
  5. Rev.Stat. sec. 687. The case of New York v. Connecticut
    Search
  6. it possessed jurisdiction, although, under the facts of the case, it refused the injunction prayed for. New Jersey v. New
    Search
  7. to questions in which the sovereign and political powers of the respective states were in controversy. In Florida v. Georgia
    Search
  8. of the existence of the jurisdiction of the Court over the controversy between the two states. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling
    Search
  9. Same v. Same
    Search
  10. the obstruction be removed either by elevating the bridge to a height designated or by abatement. South Carolina v. Georgia
    Search
  11. and accordingly the special injunction previously granted was dissolved and the bill dismissed. Wisconsin v. Duluth
    Search
  12. into the facts put in issue by the bill and answer and by dismissing the bill for want of equity. In Virginia v. West
    Search
  13. And, after citing Rhode Island v. Massachusetts
    Search
  14. Florida v. Georgia
    Search
  15. How. 478, and Alabama v. Georgia
    Search
  16. In New Hampshire v. Louisiana
    Search
  17. and New York v. Louisiana
    Search
  18. In Wisconsin v. Pelican
    Search
  19. judgment was entered for the defendant on the demurrer that had been interposed to the declaration. Hans v. Louisiana
    Search
  20. between states as to boundary lines and other questions admitting of judicial solution. And yet the case of Penn v. Lord
    Search
  21. public law, are not subjects of judicial cognizance, this Court has often declined to take jurisdiction. See Wisconsin v. Pelican
    Search
  22. The last case which we have had occasion to examine is that of Louisiana v. Texas
    Search
  23. of its citizens, the jurisdiction of this Court would attach. Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of Cohen v. Virginia
    Search
  24. that, upon further consideration, in cases arising under different states of facts, the general language used in Cohen v. Virginia
    Search
  25. has been to some extent modified. Thus, in the cases of New Hampshire v. Louisiana
    Search
  26. and testimony, the states complainant had no interest of any kind in the proceedings. So, too, in Wisconsin v. Pelican
    Search
  27. penal laws of one state against a citizen of another, to refuse to exercise jurisdiction. In the case of Louisiana v. Texas
    Search
  28. It is state action and its results that are complained of, thus distinguishing this case from that of Louisiana v. Texas
    Search
  29. of this part of the defendants' contention, but think it sufficient to cite one or two authorities. Attorney General v. Jamaica
    Search
  30. in the case of public nuisances was well described by MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, speaking for the Court in the case of Mugler v. Kansas
    Search
  31. In Coosaw Mining Co. v. South
    Search
  32. the suggestion that the complainants' remedy has been lost by delay is not founded in fact or reason. In Goldsmid v. Tunbridge
    Search
  33. apprehend that the observations which were quoted to me of Vice Chancellor Sir William Page Wood, in Attorney General v. Mayor
    Search
  34. of the Master of the Rolls was subsequently affirmed on appeal. L.R. 1 Ch. 349. Similar views prevailed in Chapman v. Rochester
    Search
  35. his lands. In the opinion of the New York Court of Appeals, it was said by Danforth, J., after citing Goldsmid v. Tunbridge
    Search
  36. U.S. Supreme Court Missouri v. Illinois
    Search
  37. of New York v. Connecticut
    Search
  38. New Jersey v. New
    Search
  39. In Florida v. Georgia
    Search
  40. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling
    Search
  41. Wisconsin v. Duluth
    Search
  42. In Virginia v. West
    Search
  43. and Alabama v. Georgia
    Search
  44. Hans v. Louisiana
    Search
  45. of Penn v. Lord
    Search
  46. See Wisconsin v. Pelican
    Search
  47. of Louisiana v. Texas
    Search
  48. of Cohen v. Virginia
    Search
  49. Cohen v. Virginia
    Search
  50. of New Hampshire v. Louisiana
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial