Citation network
Minnesota Vs. Hitchcock
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 05, 1902
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
-
U.S. 373 (1902) U.S. Supreme Court Minnesota v. HitchcockSearch
-
U.S. 373 (1902) Minnesota v. HitchcockSearch
-
a party plaintiff, and does not extend to those cases in which it is a party defendant. The case of United States v. TexasSearch
-
must be conceded that a state can bring an original suit in this Court against a citizen of another state. Wisconsin v. PelicanSearch
-
was applicable only to cases in which the state was named in the record as a party defendant. Osborn v. BankSearch
-
was confined by the treaty to a certain specified tract. That became, in effect, an Indian reservation. Spalding v. ChandlerSearch
-
It was held in Newhall v. SangerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Railroad Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
In Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. RobertsSearch
-
Doolan v. CarrSearch
-
Bardon v. NorthernSearch
-
Mann v. TacomaSearch
-
under that promise, whenever lands became public lands, they came within the scope of the grant. As said in Beecher v. WetherbySearch
-
And again, in United States v. ThomasSearch
-
by the decision of the courts and the opinions of the Attorneys General,' and cited in support of it Cooper v. RobertsSearch
-
So, also, in Cooper v. RobertsSearch
-
in its nature, and under the cognizance and protection of the judicial authorities, as well as the others. Gaines v. NicholsonSearch
-
Indians, that construction, within all the rules respecting Indian treaties, must be enforced. As said in Worcester v. GeorgiaSearch
-
And in Choctaw Nation v. UnitedSearch
-
an exception to the later, and the later held applicable to all the lands except the specially named sections. Beecher v. WetherbySearch
-
that hence all Indian rights had ceased. The Court, quoting in its opinion from United States v. CookSearch
-
to the construction of statutes -- rules with which it is not to be supposed the Indians were familiar. Buttz v. NorthernSearch
-
to no trust or condition, and the question was simply as to the effect to be given to various statutes. Heydenfeldt v. DaneySearch
-
and beyond any further control by Congress, or any further action under the general land laws. As in Heydenfeldt v. DaneySearch
-
of lands for school purposes. See a review of the legislation in respect thereto in the opinion in Cooper v. RobertsSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Minnesota v. HitchcockSearch
-
of United States v. TexasSearch
-
Wisconsin v. PelicanSearch
-
Osborn v. BankSearch
-
United States v. ThomasSearch
-
Worcester v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Choctaw Nation v. UnitedSearch
-
Buttz v. NorthernSearch
-
Heydenfeldt v. DaneySearch
-
United States v. CookSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial