Citation network
international Postal Supply Co. Vs. Bruce
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 31, 1904
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
-
U.S. 601 (1904) U.S. Supreme Court International Postal Supply Co. v. BruceSearch
-
U.S. 601 (1904) International Postal Supply Company v. BruceSearch
-
to grant an injunction against the defendant restraining the use of the machines pending the leased period. Belknap v. SchildSearch
-
Page 194 U. S. 605 MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court. This case is governed by Belknap v. SchildSearch
-
that an injunction could not be granted, and the bill was dismissed, without prejudice to an action at law. Vavasseur v. KruppSearch
-
would be, and thus the injunction practically would work a prohibition against its use by the United States. Belknap v. SchildSearch
-
differed from United States v. LeeSearch
-
U. S. 196 , and Tindal v. WesleySearch
-
U. S. 204 , and also from Page 194 U. S. 606 American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnultySearch
-
and, as it cannot be made a party, this suit, like that of Belknap v. SchildSearch
-
cases heretofore decided. That being done, but little additional need be said. Page 194 U. S. 607 In James v. CampbellSearch
-
Page 194 U. S. 608 These views were reaffirmed by the unanimous judgment of this Court in United States v. PalmerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 262 , 128 U. S. 272 . And as late as Belknap v. SchildSearch
-
citing United States v. BurnsSearch
-
James v. CampbellSearch
-
Hollister v. BenedictSearch
-
U. S. 262 , 128 U. S. 270 -272. In the previous case of United States v. LeeSearch
-
In Pennoyer v. McConnaughySearch
-
by the present CHIEF JUSTICE in In re Tyler, 149 U. S. 164 , 149 U. S. 169 , and again in Scott v. DonaldSearch
-
U. S. 58 , 165 U. S. 68 . In Tindal v. WesleySearch
-
R. Co. v. ChicagoSearch
-
with the principles announced in the above cases. The United States is not here sued, although, as in United States v. LeeSearch
-
will of the patentee. It was supposed that this Court announced an incontrovertible proposition when, in United States v. LeeSearch
-
rates for freights, would be deemed a suit against a state within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment. Smyth v. AmesSearch
-
Surely not. The court regards Belknap v. SchildSearch
-
The slightest reflection will show this. The only effectual remedy is an injunction against him. In Pennoyer v. McConnaughySearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court International Postal Supply Co. v. BruceSearch
-
International Postal Supply Company v. BruceSearch
-
Belknap v. SchildSearch
-
Vavasseur v. KruppSearch
-
the United States. Belknap v. SchildSearch
-
United States v. LeeSearch
-
and Tindal v. WesleySearch
-
of Belknap v. SchildSearch
-
In James v. CampbellSearch
-
of United States v. LeeSearch
-
In Tindal v. WesleySearch
-
of the Eleventh Amendment. Smyth v. AmesSearch
-
United States v. PalmerSearch
-
Scott v. DonaldSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial