Citation network
Giles Vs. Harris
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 27, 1903
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. 475 (1903) U.S. Supreme Court Giles v. HarrisSearch
-
U.S. 475 (1903) Giles v. HarrisSearch
-
the bill or the appeal on that ground, because to be enabled to cast a vote in that election is not, as in Mills v. GreenSearch
-
We assume, as was assumed in Holt v. IndianaSearch
-
and social rights properly may be alleged to involve damage to that amount, capable of estimation in money. Wiley v. SinklerSearch
-
not feel called upon to send the case back to the circuit court in order that it might permit the amendment. In Mills v. GreenSearch
-
U. S. 486 on the ground that the subject matter is wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the circuit court. Smith v. McKaySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
proceeding. The traditional limits of proceedings in equity have not embraced a remedy for political wrongs. Green v. MillsSearch
-
S. 488 to be the conspiracy of a state, although the state is not and could not be made a party to the bill. Hans v. LouisianaSearch
-
It is conceded that, because of the permanence of the registry, the appeal cannot be dismissed under Mills v. GreenSearch
-
was at law or in equity cannot Page 189 U. S. 489 be considered on this appeal. It was so decided in Smith v. McKaySearch
-
In Smith v. McKaySearch
-
Tucker v. McKaySearch
-
Murphy v. ColoradoSearch
-
Building & Loan Association v. PriceSearch
-
Blythe Company v. BlytheSearch
-
A still more significant case is Huntington v. LaidleySearch
-
it in holding that the amount in controversy was insufficient to support the jurisdiction of the circuit court. Barry v. EdmundsSearch
-
North American Co. v. MorrisonSearch
-
Again, in Swafford v. TempletonSearch
-
House of Representatives, it was held that the Court had jurisdiction. Here, too, we said, after referring to Wiley v. SinklerSearch
-
Holt v. IndianaSearch
-
whatever as to the value of the matter in dispute, although this Court, speaking by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, in Holt v. IndianaSearch
-
was carefully considered in United States v. SaywardSearch
-
That decision was reaffirmed in Fishback v. WesternSearch
-
by subd. 16 of section 629 and section 1979 of the Revised Statutes -- which provisions this Court assumed, in Holt v. ManufacturingSearch
-
the Constitution or laws of the United States, and conceding Page 189 U. S. 498 that this Court, in Wiley v. SinklerSearch
-
U. S. 58 , and Swafford v. TempletonSearch
-
appear from the record, or when it does not appear that the circuit court had jurisdiction. In Sizer v. ManySearch
-
In Brown v. ShannonSearch
-
In Richmond v. MilwaukeeSearch
-
In Pratt v. FitzhughSearch
-
In Walker v. UnitedSearch
-
In Ayers v. WatsonSearch
-
court has been held to preclude this Court from going into the merits of the case adjudged, we find in King Bridge Co. v. OtoeSearch
-
In Metcalf v. WatertownSearch
-
In Chapman v. BarneySearch
-
In Parker v. OrmsbySearch
-
In Mattingly v. NorthwesternSearch
-
is that a cause is without the jurisdiction of a federal court unless the contrary affirmatively appears. Turner v. BankSearch
-
U. S. 646 . In Brown v. KeeneSearch
-
To these cases I will add that of M., C. & L. M. Railway v. SwanSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial