Citation network
Ayres Vs. Polsdorfer
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 05, 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. 585 (1903) U.S. Supreme Court Ayres v. PolsdorferSearch
-
U.S. 585 (1903) Ayres v. PolsdorferSearch
-
here. Cases of the second class must be taken to the circuit court of appeals, and its judgment will be final. Loeb v. ColumbiaSearch
-
Township Trustees, 179 U. S. 47 , followed, and Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. AmatoSearch
-
it is not reviewable by writ of error from this Court. Interpreting the Judiciary Act of 1891, we said, in McLish v. RoffSearch
-
The questions were answered in Colorado Mining Co. v. TurckSearch
-
made between the questions embraced in section 5 and other federal questions. That distinction was presented in Loeb v. ColumbiaSearch
-
And this view was affirmed in Huguley Manufacturing Company v. GaletonSearch
-
Cotton Mills, 184 U. S. 290 . In Robinson v. CaldwellSearch
-
merits, both in this Court and in the circuit court of appeals. Page 187 U. S. 590 This was affirmed in Loeb v. ColumbiaSearch
-
defining the judicial power of the United States, it would seem to bring the case within the doctrine of Loeb v. ColumbiaSearch
-
now come to this Court upon another. The plaintiff in error, however, denies that this consequence results from Loeb v. ColumbiaSearch
-
result would be contrary to the principle laid down in Loeb v. ColumbiaSearch
-
and Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. AmatoSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 471 , and Union Pacific Railway Co. v. HarrisSearch
-
Answering the question, counsel say if the doctrine of Mining Co. v. TurckSearch
-
appeals to this Court by writ of error or appeal. Such a result would be contrary to the principle laid down in Loeb v. ColumbiaSearch
-
by that which we have already said. Besides, counsel are wrong in their premises. Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. AmatoSearch
-
and Union Pacific Railway Co. v. HarrisSearch
-
and we assigned the case to that class of cases which was not dependent solely upon diversity of citizenship. Loeb v. ColumbiaSearch
-
them. Another argument is used by plaintiff in error to bring this case within Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. AmatoSearch
-
Union Pacific Railway Co. v. HarrisSearch
-
and Loeb v. ColumbiaSearch
-
right in this, the result is that the writ of error should be maintained, it being sufficient under the case of Loeb v. ColumbiaSearch
-
of the United States. If it be such a case, it should be brought here directly from the circuit court, and Loeb v. ColumbiaSearch
-
we have cited apply. There is Page 187 U. S. 595 nothing to the contrary in Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. AmatoSearch
-
or Union Pacific Railway Co. v. HarrisSearch
-
parties is a federal corporation. The final contention of plaintiff in error is that the principle of Mining Co. v. TurckSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Ayres v. PolsdorferSearch
-
Loeb v. ColumbiaSearch
-
Colorado Mining Co. v. TurckSearch
-
Huguley Manufacturing Company v. GaletonSearch
-
In Robinson v. CaldwellSearch
-
of Loeb v. ColumbiaSearch
-
of Mining Co. v. TurckSearch
-
Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. AmatoSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial